News Focus
News Focus
icon url

thndr65

07/21/08 10:17 AM

#71754 RE: heelsgo1 #71745

If the assets are REAL and currently in the form of CASH, and they take that money and burry it in the Johnsons back yard for some reason, that money will NOT produce any revnue. If they buy a building and cant lease the space, the asset is not producing any revnue and is actually costing the company money.

Just bacause they have the asset dosent meant it will generate revnue.

Its all about the revnue, no matter which sector the company is in
icon url

Frogg

07/21/08 11:21 AM

#71777 RE: heelsgo1 #71745

Heels, Duh! Duh! LOL! $682 million of those alleged assets come from a promissory note. They can legally carry that note on the balance sheet as an asset but they haven't been paid for the preferred shares yet. We don't know when they will be paid either.

If you remove the $682 million plus a couple more questionable entries (by me) from the assets on the balance sheet, it comes out they have about a million in assets. I doubt it's even that much.

Plus, if you remove the interest on the promissory note under revenue on the income statement, the company actually lost money last quarter. They haven't received that interest yet either.

So where's the cash coming from to buy all those properties? Ah, I know, from all the stock the company's selling! LOL!!