Replies to post #143900 on TAP Real Estate Technologies Inc (RWAX)

[NoMoDo]

Yea, it actually is your word.

Did you read the 10K? Wasn’t my word….lol.

I wasted about a half hour of my life reading how you parse sentences (again, and again) trying to say that it isn't actually magnesium silicate, but rather some waste material from processing steel. Not exactly what the 10k said, but again, the auditors said that the magnesium silicate is worth $20mil. So you call it whatever you want. I won't argue.

Well, that isn't true. Contract law states that the disposition date is when one party relinquishes control. The property is owned by HMBL.

Just like if they didn’t own it because they haven’t paid for it yet…or if they had impaired the entire value of the asset.

Did you read the 10k? There is nowhere in the 10k stating that the asset value was less than the original stated value. I am guessing you don't fully understand the words you choose. There is a new asset, and there is debt brought about by the purchase of an asset. Similar to buying a house and taking out a loan for 100% of the value. That doesn't impair the value in any way because the new owner can sell the asset for the same price and break even, more and make a profit, or less and take a loss. Asset value is unaffected. So no, the asset has a value of $20mil, not zero. The fact that they owe $20mil in stock doesn't reduce the value. That is just blind ignorance.

or if they had impaired the entire value of the asset.

I think you are missing how accounting works. Who is they as in if "they paid for it?" HMBL doesn't have any money to pay for it. Ybyra owned it so they already paid for it. Again, if you buy a house ( or fertilizer) on credit, the loan is a liability, not shareholder's equity. Assets minus liabilities equal SE. Right now there is no adjustment to SE over the sale because no portion of the loan wasn't yet paid - $20mil in assets minus a $20mil loan = 0 change to SE.

Thinking that an auditor didn't bother properly valuing it because the transaction carried a 100% loan to value - how in the world to you make this fertilizer up? Didn't the auditor state that the fertilizer was worth $20mil? If we later find that the fertilizer was worth only $10mil, then the auditor is in big trouble.

I think there is more going on than just the share issuance. If they had paid for it and that liability was moved to the equity part of the balance sheet then the auditors would have to have dug a lot further than just that “valuation report” which is likely the same one from 2017 that Ybyra’s auditors referenced.

No. Just no. If there was anything suspicious, the auditor would have made note of it as required by law. They are signing off on it. Maybe take an accounting class or two before your next theory.

That little accounting twist bought them a year before they have to revisit it with their auditors.