Bill Wexler's Dog Pound Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound

REFR 1.730

+10.2%

Nov 11 3:57 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: David who wrote (1592)	6/28/1999 4:40:00 PM
From: Hockeyfan	Read Replies (1) of 10293

At the risk of legitimizing the complete crap posted on this thread.. The current evidence offered up by ynot against IDX is refuted as follows: No Default The company did not incur a payment default on its bank line of credit at 3/31/99. They were in technical violation of a bank covenant(s). There is a BIG difference. Whoever wrote the footnotes to the financial statements did a poor job if phrasing the situation. Companies violate technical provisions of debt covenants all the time and get waivers for the violation or amendments to the covenants. I would guess that the covenants are currently being rewritten as they did not contemplate IDX acquiring the biometric industry's second largest competitor. Default means non-payment of principal or interest on a due date. There is no due date on a revolving line of credit and since there is $1,353,000 available on the LOC, it is unlikely that they defaulted on the line of credit. Also, you can not get a waiver on a payment default, but you can get a waiver on a debt covenant violation. As for ynot's ratios -- Think about the ratio of pea brains that make incendiary posts on subjects they know nothing about and ask questions that they themselves don't know the answers to well-informed long-term holders that have to waste their time answering stupid questions by the former. I'll give you a hint. If ynot was a CPA or a CFA he would know that A/R to A/P doesn't mean anything and that the current ratio is current assets to current liabilities. Ynot is blowing smoke in the form of accounting/financial jargon and misformed financial relationships hoping that we won't take the time to dispute his crap. If he knew was he was talking about, he would know that IDX was not in default of its LOC, but in violation of its debt covenants -- see first paragraph.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next