Replies to post #44527 on Top Shelf Brands Holdings Corp. (DKTS)

[Nabbbss]

IMO, This all will be squared-away, reconciled, and resolved as
the Revenues start coming in, and "real" SEC Filings commence.

There is so much happening and underway, nowadays, and I am sure
CEO Alonzo Pierce has plenty on his plate as it is.

Not diminishing or discounting the significance or pertinence of
anything, just placing such matters into some sort-of perspective
and priority (in my mind).

Things shall be taking off very soon, and much of the microscopic
nit-picking, hand-wringing, nagging uncertainty, angst-in-pants,
incongruities, inexplicable and confounding information or numbers,
and other oversights will be clarified/resolved, or will simply fall
by the wayside.

In all of Penny-Stock-dom and PinkyLand and Micro-Cap-ville,
surely there have been SOME-few Companies who are legit, meritor-
ious, productive, and profitable. That is, surely SOME few com-
panies have "made it."

This is simply my instinct and intuition kicking-in. I mean,
EVERYthing cannot ALWAYS be in-error, flawed, crooked, a con-job,
or whatever. This World, this Life must have SOME "normal/typical/decent"
people in it. Sometimes we all get caught-up in the minutia of
things, and lose-sight of the bigger picture and the larger,
unfolding scenario.

All the Best to Everybody and Top Shelf Brands Holdings Corp.!$ :-)

[hedge_fun]

TEMN's current noteholders have no interest......

in anything being disclosed. The more confusing the better. If Alonzo looks like an idiot.....so be it. They don't care. They want theirs....plain and simple, and they wish to remain anonymous.

Not sure they'll get their wish. Alonzo liked to talk.......

Just sayin'

[loanranger]

You are just asking for trouble when trying to analyze a Cash Flow Statement, which serves the purpose of reconciling the beginning and ending cash balances of the period. It's the most difficult of the 3 statements to follow.
If you look at the headings of Q1 and Q2 and the very end of the respective CF statements, you will note that they BOTH begin at January 1 and reflect the same beginning Cash balance. That's why you see the three items that you posted in red on BOTH statements (they actually occurred in the first quarter but, obviously then, they also occurred in the first half).

Easiest question first:
"Why do the numbers between the two sections not match up?"
Because (for Q1) the first numbers you list are from the Balance Sheet, which reflects assets at a specific point in time...in this case at 3/31. The second group of numbers is from the CF Statement, which reflects activity DURING the quarter.
So the "Net cash provided by Financing Activities" of 10K reflects the new lending of 75k net of the 65K which was either paid in cash or converted to shares. (I need to add that I'm describing how this stuff is SUPPOSED to work, which may or may not be the way the accountant prepared it.)
We SHOULD know whether that 65K was paid by the company in cash or shares from the Disclosure Statement that accompanied the financials. When we look at the Issuance History in the Disclosure, if the debt was paid in shares, we would expect to see that fact reported, including the price per share used to determine the number of shares issued. Since no issuances have been reported in any of the three Disclosure Statements filed since the beginning of the year, logic would dictate that the 65K was paid in cash. But that's just not a reasonable conclusion.
The first Disclosure statement showed approx 1.1 billion shares outstanding on 1/24/14 while the next 2 Disclosure statements showed approx 1.6 billion shares outstanding as of 7/28. The only way that could have occurred is if 500 million shares (at least) were issued between those two dates. The only way the Issuance Histories for Q1 and Q2 could properly avoid reporting some or all of those 500 million shares is if they were issued between 7/1 and 7/28 and I submit that is not worthy of consideration. At the very least we are aware of 9 million shares issued to a promoter at some point during the first half.

We can't rely on the Disclosure Statements. Alonzo has apparently decided not to provide any information regarding the issuance of shares, even though such information is a requirement of the filing. Sadly Otcmarkets doesn't care....they accept whatever crap is submitted. Everybody's happy and gets to stand around cheering because the company is CURRENT!!!

One last thing. I have no idea what this is:
"Notes Payable - Other -10,842.95"
There's no reason to show a negative number in the Notes Payable section of a Balance Sheet. It makes no sense at all. If it represents partial payments or conversions to shares of the 3 notes shown then that should be shown as a reduction of the note amount, not a separate negative number.

There's plenty of stuff in the company's filings that doesn't make sense. If you have any other specifics I'll try to address them.