In skimming it quickly, I see that note 3 doesn't seem to adequately explain a proper accounting treatment of the debts that reference that note...
I see they say there are no off balance sheet arrangements... so, no "deals" with Goldcorp you can count on... and at the say time they say they just sort of figure Goldcorp won't sue them for a range of payments due and debts they aren't paying...
I don't think that likely is a sufficient reason to move a debt or other obligation from one category to another... ???
Deferrals of payments that are due... as those due to Goldcorp which may be deferred... doesn't make them just not exist ?
JMHO...
Particularly given the extreme in the non-arms length nature of the relationships, I don't see this accounting does a credible job of accounting for or explaining the current state of the financial aspects and various impacts of those obligations.
I expect their statement:
"The amount of capital that we currently have the capacity to raise is not sufficient to pay all of the capital expenses that we need to pay to commence operations, and pay our other liabilities as they come due."
Is only EXACTLY what I've been saying, and it provides something of a proof in terms of this following precisely the trajectory we saw at FGOC... lenders willing to put up just enough money to get them "almost" there... but not enough to enable them to actually get there... All the MORE telling here, perhaps, given recent words on who it seems they've said their lenders ARE... which, again, shows the lack of proper linkages between the various sections of the statement, when considering the non-arms length aspects, and the lack of any other arrangement sufficient to provide an accounting basis for the treatement they've applied ?
But, you know, I only took 2 minutes to skim it... and I'm not an accountant...
.JPG)
AI
.JPG)
