Hi, PTK - Thanks for your post: it reinforces the impression that we have a non-critical error here. I hope things can move on quickly, though I have a nagging fear that the OSC is moving in concert with some disaffected investors. If that is the case, they may, however unwittingly, introduce additional delay sufficient to make things difficult for DMX.
Your post brought something to light, perhaps; I don't know. One of the things I've been looking for in the debate around the GAAP accounting issue is motive. What inspired DMX to take a non-standard approach, however justifiable and understandable it may be?
The following was interesting:
"separate disclosure of offsetting future tax assets and future tax liabilities is required.
This has to do with deferred income tax disclosure. Generally, if there is reasonable assurance that DMX will be profitable then they may elect to record a deferred tax asset on their balance sheet so long as offsetting future tax assets exceed their future tax liabilities. This disclosure would be interesting as DMX needs to prove that it is reasonably assured that it will be able to generate sufficient income in the future to realize the tax losses available."
My question:
Is it possible that the motivation behind this whole exercise was a desire to obscure future income projections (be they bad or good)?
Kind of speculative, I know; but I think most of us are aware of RK's desire to limit vision into the company's affairs - which, we hope, is done for competitive reasons.
Regards,
Jim |
