InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 16
Posts 765
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 11/30/2009

Re: None

Tuesday, 07/19/2011 2:03:20 PM

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:03:20 PM

Post# of 67634
Repost:

The profit margin is expentially higher lol. They basically have no real cost because most of the cost were incurred in their $52 million intellectual property.

A prose from a conversation a little while ago with Dr. Dab.


Q&A

Please elaborate in the discrepancy between claiming $50m in intellectual property and only having stated $30 in assets.

There is no discrepancy whatsoever between, on the one hand, what was spent in hard cash to create our proprietary platforms, that is some 52M, and on the other issues of accounting and balance sheet that you are raising. We own intellectual property that was created at a cost of 52M between 1999 and 2010, borne out by the following parties:
Shareholders of VSHC, approx. 9M cash,
Cardinal Health of Dublin, Ohio, 6.5M
Government subsidies and loans: 16M
Foundations: 4M
Debt: 2M
VisualMED Clinical Solutions Corp. approx 26M
Licensee and Client contribution: 1.6M
All intellectual property to all IT platforms has reverted to VSHC.
The above is the actual business reality and the accumulated value in the company.
Your reference to the balance sheet is to a accounting snapshot of the corporation based on GAAP. This involves tax and depreciation considerations which as you know have been codified mainly for manufacturing and commercial enterprises. It is well known that GAAP does not provide a fair reflection of value, operations, inventory, and cash flow in the reporting on Knowledge businesses such as IT or Biotech. In the case of VSHC all R&D has been expensed rather than get booked as an asset on advice from Deloitte.

VSHC