Now XTI did not use ASC 480 at all? You previously stated XTI used ASC 480 first and then ASC 815 second, which I countered was the other way around.
Now you've switch-a-roo-ed when after I delivered my strong counter argument, where you now evade to claim that your previous claim that ASC 480 was used first now wasn't used at all.
Very very clearly YOU ARE MAKING IT UP AS YOU GO!
YOU SIR, ARE A FAKER.
---- ---- Wow, evasive bullshitter rings the bell loudly!
They considered and determined both.
Yet cannot be both, so later determination became XTI's use of ASC 480 -10-20 to define its JV obligation as a mandatorily redeemable financial instrument that in effect makes it not a derivative and thus considering and making determination under ASC 815 was in effect an accounting misdirection, that per past years cannot and will not be undone but simply changed as and with a new current accounting method, which they in fact did (as is allowed) when XTI stated and by the fact that they then considered and made determination upon ASC 480- 10-20 consideration, as they did initially with ASC 815.
Any man would actually address the issues I raise to counter your argument.
You don't. In fact, you're back in the corner rocking back and forth rapidly encircling yourself with you same old mantra, evasive as your standard.
XTI made adjustment to its obligation.
XTI did not adjust its obligation to the adjustment amount!
A fair adjustment changing the obligation not by the adjustment amount somewhat higher or lower as adjusted, but to the adjustment amount itself, is not fair by any accounting method.
Market Data 
Markets 
