Replies to post #22097 on Bravada International Ltd (BRAV)

[naturalborninvestor]

Why do you think DA included the term "pro forma" in his statement?

"The pro forma accounting is a statement of the company's financial activities while excluding "unusual and nonrecurring transactions" when stating how much money the company actually made."

Do grand opening celebrity endorsements fall under this? I don't know. That would very much depend on whether celebrity endorsement is seen as an integral part of the business model, or an irregular expense.
To date, however, I have no clue about the cost structure of the business, so any revenues projections don't mean much to me. I am not interested to know how much money the company makes above-the line, but whether revenues are sufficient to fund operations.


You may want to read up here about the issue:
Critics note that pro forma numbers typically look more profitable than US GAAP numbers, and state that many companies intentionally use pro forma results in order to mislead investors into believing the company is in much better financial shape than it is; that there is no defined meaning or accounting standard for "pro forma" and that it is therefore impossible to make an "apples to apples" comparison between companies with pro forma results in the way that GAAP accounting allows; and that most "unusual events" reported as such are part of the ordinary course of business and should be reported as such. It may be argued that it is dishonest to claim that restructuring charges are unusual, one-time events that investors should not anticipate in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_forma

[Stratey]

fully reporting and the highest reputable companies make safe harbor statements, whats your point?

I don't want to speak for him, but I bet he would say that there's no safe harbor statement on the financial statements. In fact the financials go one step further and has a certification that the statements are based on factual events and not on projections.

The CC had a safe harbor statement that was about two minutes long.

Big difference. I'm not saying he did, but his CC could have been full of speculation and estimates based on future events occurring...the safe harbor statement at the beginning of the call covered EVERYTHING he said on the call.

I'd prefer to see financials with a certification. Sounds alot more official, now, doesn't it??

[subzero989]

I always believe that the proof is in the pudding. If the company is living up to any of his projections then it needs to be backed up by the financials and not just some safe harbor forward looking statements.