Accounting treatment analogy: In 2010 you search for
gold in your backyard and after spending $1 million
you do not find anything. You write the $1 mil off on your 2010
tax filing as an expense(let's say cost of inventory).
On January 1 2011, you in fact happen to find $1 mil of
gold in your basement. Now you must report the $ 1mil
to the government as current income but have nothing
on the expense side to show for it. What would you do?
This is the same problem VLCO has. They need to have
a representative value stated on their books for the value of their
library content in order for them to more truly state the approximate
book value of the company. This is important both for financing and potential merger options.
Unfortunately, the tax treatment of
"unrecognized" items from prior years tends to create
misleading bottom lines as the adjustments are made.
Your argument is valid. There should have been some disclosure
that the numbers did not constitute "current operating
earnings".
Keep in mind however, that this is a company that
has just emerged from bankruptcy. They cannot afford
Deloitte and Touche to do their filings.
The bottom line investment decision we have to make is
really this: Are we willing to pay .07 for a company with
no earnings but with a $.45 book value and with awesome
potential?
Some of us have decided that in "pinkieland" that's really not
such a bad deal.
So, you bring up legitimate points, but in the final
analysis "current earnings" is not what this company is
all about. GLTU
von User trademeister |
Thread abonnieren
.. erst die eigenen Aktien verkauft und gleichzeitig geshortet ..doppelt verdient und das fett
