Fred: You think I should pursue a more balanced outlook? From what I can see, I am one of the very few people on this thread with a balanced outlook. I've acknowledged many times the potential is here. But that potential does not blind me to the dangers.
Again, you dismiss SEC filings as standard CYA disclaimers. The question at hand was VLNC's financial situation. The discussion had to do with why they didn't go into production last year when you claimed they could. I said it would be stupid for a company in VLNC's financial situation not to start production if they could, given the financial situation. You suggest the financial situation was just fine, and dismiss my comments as a literal reading of the disclaimers in the filings.
In addition to disclaimers (of which VLNC has far more than any "real company," SEC filings include an exact enumeration of the financial situation covered by the statement. These are called the balance sheet and the statement of operations, Fred. These financial statements are not disclaimers. The fact is that in July, and again in December, VLNC had substantial negative working capital. This is an indisputible fact, not a "worst case scenario" disclaimer in the filing. In both cases, the SEC filings indicated they were down to weeks of operations left unless they got more money.
In both cases they did, and in both cases it was floorless variable rate financing. Floorless financing is a source of last resort. "Real" companies do not have to resort to floorless financing. Anybody who knows a little bit about investing understands how to read financial statements and understands what floorless financing means.
Your obfuscation of the true nature of VLNC's financial situation does a disservice to yourself and this board.
And you suggest I should be more balanced. In my two plus years of following dozens of different threads on SI, you are one of the 5 least balanced posters I have encountered. |
