"you imply, by definition,"
What the hell does this mean??????
So if a current Balance Sheet is proven to be accurate, then all Prior year balance Sheets must also be accurate too, including the income statements. Is this what you are saying Reginno????
=========================================================
The $11.0 Million net income was never FORMALLY stated. The 10k extension doesn't mean chit. A Formally (Your words, not mine) stated net income should include a Balance Sheet and the related income statement. The only "formally" thing the shareholders have gotten is "horeschit". And of course. this "horsechit" to subject to audit.
"Subject to audit" means the audit is not over. So you use of "FORMALLY" is a joke.
===========================================================
Never said Mosky "cooked the books". But I will say Mosky's professional accounting background is, at best, very very weak, and thus very dangerous. Mosky never worked for an major accounting firm, never conducted an audit, is not a CPA, never work for in an accounting department under a professional accountant and doesn't know GAAP from his azz. And no clue about GAAS. He's a professional stock promoter. Some of the 10k disclosures were hilarious. He doesn't even know the basic accounting concept of "matching revenues with expenses". And he freely admitted this in the 10k and that the financial statements could not be relied on to make future projections. LOLOLOLOLOL How D&D allowed this is beyond me.
Clearly you don't understand accounting year "cut-offs" and their effects on the Retained Earnings. The pro-forma Balance Sheet will adjust the SPNG BS, to reflect Dicon transaction, and this proforma BS now become the beginning SPNG Balance Sheet for FY 2010. Unless the auditor feels it not material. Which it could be, but I doubt it.
==============================================================
Nine months ending Feb 2010 income I have never discussed. The 12 months ending Feb 2010, YES. And during this 1 year period, I believe the increase in the published (Formal, if you like) Feb 2009 Retained earnings will be $0, due to facts and circumstamnces outlined earlier. Which I think is Positive.
Regarding the $6.1 million in losses for the 9 months ending Feb. 2010, how can this be considered "very positive" for a company that has been claiming $70 million per quarter in orders, and which you would agree on since you have agreed on SPNG historical financials filed with the SEC.
What the company claimed and what actually happen are two different things. Thats why they have auditors. All I see is the FORMAL (You words, not mine) Balance Sheet as of Feb 2009. Everything else, I need to see a FORMAL (Your words, not mine) numbers in some sort of filing. I'll even take an unaudited Balance Sheet and income Statement, at this point.
AI
