Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pierre who wrote (17701)	10/6/2000 8:38:14 PM
From: pcstel	Respond to of 29987

Pierre, <<Seems to me a loan vs equity injection are two very different events and would be treated differently on the balance sheet. elena's sleuthing seems to have added additional evidence supporting RS's theory.>> Of course you are confusing Balance Sheet Revenue (Operational), and Cash on Hand.. RS's thesis is based on the concept that the banks would allow the sale of equities to be construed as a FORM of Revenue, for the purpose of satisfying Revenue Covenant's. If the sale of equities was allowed to be entered as "Operational Revenue" then GLP would have over 200 Million on the Books so far this year.. (The February Secondary).. If I remember correctly, there was a reply from Loral IR regarding weather the Revenue from Gateway Payments (expected the Quarter) would count toward the Revenue Requirements.. The reply from IR correctly stated that only the revenue from the "royalites" of the sale of Gateways ($400,000 per GW) would count toward Revenues. The amounts from the sale of Gateways should go to Restricted Cash, and then paid to QCOM. Since the sale of equity in Feb. did not get counted as Revenue, then I doubt that the Cash from the Bear S. deal would be counted as Revenues. PCSTEL