Replies to post #64072 on Rocky Mountain High Brands Inc (RMHB)

[pitts77h]

That analysis is so wildly wrong I hardly know where to begin.

Let's start with the treatment of RHMB's losses being valuable for any potential acquirer.

It's completely, absolutely and monumentally wrong. Think about it - by that reasoning, the more RMHB loses the more valuable it becomes. That's absurd. If that reasoning were correct, profitable companies would be buying fraudulent money losing penny stock scams, like this one, by the dozen in order to shield their taxable profits. They don't.

Why not? Well, the IRS is way ahead of you. Section 382 controls how tax losses are treated in business combinations, and it's apparent your analysis doesn't take into consideration what section says, or how it's applied, or what the applicable case law is.

Here's the actual section: 26 U.S. Code § 382 - Limitation on net operating loss carryforwards and certain built-in losses following ownership change

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/382

The analysis of RMHB's losses is ludicrous.

[blindjohn]

Nice boom

[Iron trader 1]

This should be a highlighted post. Awesome analysis.

[oilsleuth]

Firstly you say that the Black-Scholes model isn't really applicable long term (Paritz actually applies an Extended Term of only .01 to 1 years). Quite aside from what part of the Net Loss of $16,624,202 would be acceptable in a determination by the IRS.

RMHB would be valued at $100m as a tax loss acquisition? Oh please, give us a break. Think about what you are saying.

I wonder if someone who really understands accounting practice would ever write 16,624,202 as 16,624.202

The Black-Scholes Model showing RMHB with a loss adds a potential value of over 100m to a purchase offer.

[blindjohn]

Wow Audit Complete! Done! Uplisting and boom coming

[fourthjohn]

Thanks, Dragnet! Great break down of the report. Its time to uplist!