I am not sure you understand what goodwill is.
I certainly don’t understand why you are trying to make it a topic of debate, since Breitling didn’t claim any goodwill in their financial statements. Any explanation on why you brought it up, or why you believe it to be relevant would be helpful.
In this case, I meant the difference between the value of the separate assets and liabilities of a company and what some fool is willing to pay for the company. I wasn't trying to make it a part of any debate, should one arise.
As far as discussing financial statements that have potential accounting errors, you were the one who brought it up by talking about Breitling’s “negative equity.”
I am just responding by using the same documents that you are referring to.
I used the 12/2013 statement to suggest that BECC had little value, not to prove it. The suggestion comes about because I don't think BECC would grossly understate the value of it's assets, but it is certainly possible. You, on the other hand, say the company is or was profitable as if it is undoubtedly true. Vast difference between what you use them for and what I thought they might indicate.
You were the one who said that you had heard of Chris Faulkner CEO of Breitling, but had never heard of Ultra CEO Michael Watford. The point being that Fualkner has a media presence larger than some of his NYSE/NASDAQ counterparts.
First of all, so what. Second, I became aware of Chris Faulkner by reading a somewhat obscure trade newsletter called Petroleum News Bakken. How you took that as an indication of meadia presence, I don't know. If you want to somehow twist that media presence into industry footprint, go ahead. It is the very fact that so many people did twist the media presence that CF bought into industry footprint that I find disturbing.
While I did say Ultra had $2T in assets, it was obviously a typo and I did actually state the correct amount of assets in the same post.
Quote:
"Ultra Petroleum had assets of more than $2,958,000,000 and a share price of $30 in early 2014 before $WTIC collapsed."
You claim extensive of research into Breitling, but still fail to acknowledge that most of Breitling’s royalty and working interests were accumulated as a private company and there is no way for anyone to comment on any of those wells, since Breitling is not the operator of those prospects.
I have never, ever, ever disputed that and in fact have stated that expressly. I think this is another case of you making things up about me. And just to be clear, I don't know how you know those assets were accumulated mostly as a private company. Also, just for clarity, we are aware of the magnitude of the reserves owned by the various Breitling companies by looking at the reserves report, though, like a lot of information, it is stale.
What I have disputed is many of CF's public claims and insinuations. Sure, in the absence of information, this board has been pulled off to some wide topics. So what?
The best that anyone can do, is guess at future production of a handful of wells that can be researched since Breitling became a public company two and half years ago.
Exactly. And if someone wants to call that handful "growth by the bit" they can, but some of us are laughing at that. But just to be accurate, one can find a number of wells of the companies that preceded BECC. I will point out that my guesses have been pretty good.
While Faulkner does have some unpaid travel and advertising expenses that have gone to court, those debts are not toxic to shareholders at this point, as some people continue to falsely claim.
Not sure why you bring that up. The Sheriff was ordered over to BECC to seize BECC assets. I don't know what you mean by toxic to shareholders and it has nothing to do with anything I said.
Many have also falsely claimed that Fualkner was fleecing investors, but there is proof that shows it to be absolutely false for public investors, while there is nothing to show anything of the sort for accredited and institutional investors.
Noted.
IMO and FWIW.
