Replies to post #10294 on Plasticon International, Inc. (fka PLNIQ)

[gopackersgo]

You are still wrong but an excellent typist. What they have done to date do not require audited filings ...period..WHEN they release numbers including Pro Mold and Semco they will be required to under the provisions you quoted....thanks for the lecture on your glorious "accounting" background....but the patents are merely a footnote on the financials and certainly you of all people should realize that....at least with the resume you posted...The assets thru Dec. 31 which is the only period in question...at least for now... is $7 million.

What is the basis for the patent value? Think Jim. Think. Its why the $20 million is a footnote and NOT LISTED as an asset in the balance sheet. The company fought like helll to have them included at the above value....and lost...reason being...the audit firm being accountants like yourself said no. The reason I know this is not because I am an accountant...the reason is I asked the parties who would know...not speculate...but know. Doesn't mean they aren't worth $20 million....I believe soon they will be worth even more....But you of all people as a CFO, PHd and whatever else you wrote CLEARLY should realize there is a difference in the accounting representation of what it cost to develop the asset, what a judgement may validate their value as and what they are worth in the marketplace.

And lastly...a company can indeed issue a press release if a legal judgement is rendered that validates or agrees with a value to the patents...that is not fraud...keep up the good typing though....

PS. if you really memorized every FASB release...you needed to get out more often....thats what clerks are for

[DTL]

Jim, based on what you have read in the unaudited financials release and your extensive background; how long would it normally take for this to get "audited"? I have been in this for eight months and I am losing patience with the companie's leadtimes while implying everything is "soon".
How could the company think they were profitable in Q2, 2005? Could they have been given the appearance of profitable back then if they were running the numbers a different way?
Aren't the accounting rules very specific; i.e. isn't it "what you see is what you get"? Other than Worldcom or Enron of course!
Can a company catagorize assets, income, cash, costs, etc in ways that would make them in one way look like a loss but in other ways make them look profitable?
Are the unaudited finanicials in the current format submitted close to what the audited financials will look like for 04 and 05 or could we see some real differences?

Thanks!