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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Bartlett who wrote (12211)	3/9/2003 9:36:14 AM
From: Ron Nairn	Respond to of 14101

Mark, I'm not so sure the future value is so much in question, but rather the present value. The present book value of $63 million for patents could be perfectly well supported by capitalized development costs but I suspect it's more a point of how was its market value determined. This transaction was not an arms length transaction. If outside companies were bidding on the patents, the OSC is suggesting it could be worth less. DMX & OXO together determined the acceptable price, the agreement was struck and Dr. Kuhn's participation in the transaction is ongoing. Had he been paid outright in cash, it might not be an issue. REK may be fully justified in her presentation of value but it's likely a matter of perception because DMX and OXO have been in bed together for years. Once a fair market value (discounted PV to use the OSC's terminology)is determined, I suspect we can move forward. I also feel a discount applied to the patents will have a future negative affect on writeoffs resulting in higher EPS. JMO Rondo

To: Mark Bartlett who wrote (12211)	3/9/2003 11:33:52 AM
From: axial	Respond to of 14101

Mark, at the risk of repeating, thank you for attending the meeting, and for all the effort you've given to subsequent clarification. Thanks, too, to the many thoughtful posters who've contributed to the dialogue; especially those like PTK, who have taken the time to to educate and explain. It's a lot of work, and is much appreciated. My observation is that this has been one of the most illuminating and well-conducted discussions ever seen on the DMX threads, both here and at SH. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ All in all, the question of accounting for the Oxo Chemie transaction, and the OSC's demand that DMX account for it in a manner consistent with GAAP, is beginning to be understood. It appears that this will not be an insurmountable barrier to the RO, though the matter of how long it will take is unresolved. However, I'd like to go back to the reference to a "ma and pa shop" mentality at DMX, and show why this matter is relevant. It's long been an article of faith that RK intended to take DMX to a US exchange at some point. In fairness to RK, her last public statement on the matter seemed to indicate less enthusiasm for the immediate prospect. A review of DMX's accounting methods would be an absolute prerequisite to admission to any US exchange, and the evidence is clear: accounting must be consistent with GAAP. Period. The question that arises: Given the problems at hand, and the problems the accounting issue would create in any anticipated US listing, what was RK thinking? What foresight did she exhibit? Jim