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.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (9957)	7/26/2011 8:24:03 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53574

. The most famous being Gately was it supposedly didn't have a license to do accounting. It turned out, like virtually all other skeptic hogwash, that it wasn't true. Rawnoc Share Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:20:07 AM Re: Risicare post# 44547 Post # of 124060 No, it's not bogus. It's an error at best because... "Stock issued for assets should be recorded at the fair value of the stock or assets, whichever is more clearly determinable." principlesofaccounting.com It's a gray area and involves some level of opinion/interpretation. Which one is "more clearly determinable" ? The problem in this case was that neither was a very good metric of anything. I didn't think the illquid at the time stock at $1/share which some days didn't trade at all is a fair determination of $1 million in stock. It was trading at the time an average of $15,000 a day and subject to 25% (and more) swings in the price. It's a ridiculous measure as I alone out of boredom if I wanted could buy 5000 shares back then and swing the price as much as 30%. You're out of your mind if you think the stock price was a more easy way to determine fair value of 1 million shares vs. the fixed media credits asset value which was originally based on $10 million in Domark stock (also extremely illiquid but it was successfully accepted by Media4Equity at the time and passed by the auditers, even if we don't like the auditers accounting rules don't allow us to change numbers based on not liking the auditors.) "Stock Issued for Assets Other ThanCashCompanies sometimes issuestock in exchange for non-cash assets.Record the transaction atthe market value of thegoods or services received" 74.125.155.132 I, and Gately apparently, voted $10 million because it was on DOMK`s balance sheet and JBII was extremely illiquid. Problem is that DOMK was even more illiquid than JBII and that was the basis for the media credit value in the first place. Therefore JBII stock, as bad as a value metric as it is for this transaction, could possibly be the better of the two. Gately said they were fine as is probably because the media credits paper value is a very gray area. By the way, we still don't know if there will even be a write dowh. The financials aren't complete. siliconinvestor.com Rawnoc Share Thursday, June 03, 2010 1:08:20 PM Re: flptrnkng post# 46920 Post # of 124060 JBII has had one auditor and just switched to a top tier accounting firm. Some people like to foolishly count the timeframe they shopped for auditors over the course of what was that, a week? When they had virtually no operations? Who gives a crap? They had one auditor. Gately. They did all the work. Now they upgraded to a top tier accounting firm with a flawless track record. Red flag? A pretty damn weak red flag. siliconinvestor.com Rawnoc Share Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:21:51 PM Re: SteveF post# 50557 Post # of 124060 Your timeline doesn't allow for an extra 3.4 million shares. Seems like a grossly silly error. Even Gately is 1000 times more accurate than 99% of what you post. siliconinvestor.com Rawnoc Share Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:00:35 PM Re: scion post# 38554 Post # of 124060 No, I think his analysis of those statistics are 1000 times better than others. For example, those who were screaming up and down that John didn't know when Kidd's shares expire or that the Al Sousa's CONTRACT wasn't just an LOI or that Gately did have a license and the other laundry list. Some people can copy and paste. Other people can read and understand and analyze. And they loaded JBII under $1 while others were copying and pasting for them why that was a bad idea, insisting that JBII's Gatley didn't have an accounting license for example. ROFL!!! siliconinvestor.com Rawnoc Share Saturday, April 17, 2010 1:52:02 PM Re: scion post# 38065 Post # of 124059 Nah, but it does remind me of the "necessary" revising when we insisted that Gately did indeed have an accounting license, that Al Sousa did indeed have a formal contract and not just an LOI, that John did indeed return 31 million shares, and that Kidd's shares are indeed restricted despite thousands of false claims foolishly stating otherwise. siliconinvestor.com Rawnoc Share Sunday, April 11, 2010 9:06:07 PM Re: scion post# 36763 Post # of 124059 I believe the catalyst was found on the same database as the one that had Gately non-expired accounting license, the signed contract from Al Sousa NOT being just an LOI, the non-payment for the chartpopper.com interview, and John did indeed giving back 31 million shares. I'm confident that it IS indeed the largest engineering archive in the world given that the source I used to confirm that was the same one that gave me the above information which too was proven to be correct, much to my humiliation for being skeptical about it, ya know? siliconinvestor.com Rawnoc Share Friday, April 09, 2010 2:49:28 PM Re: jobynimble post# 36415 Post # of 124059 No, no, I was reading about the materially false and misleading info that Gately didn't have an accounting license when the stock was near a buck. Fellow longs were urging people to call the company to verify that the government site wasn't up to date but would be soon. Those longs were mocked. I started to wonder myself. I was a skeptic myself back then to a certain large degree. I guess I should have just called the company to help locate the answers. WTF was I thinking? I have my brain dead moments. siliconinvestor.com Rawnoc Share Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:58:55 PM Re: Scandle34 post# 36086 Post # of 124056 Correct. We've been down this road before at least half a dozen times where we all thought it was an "ah ha, gotcha" moment that turned out to be a mere delay the current info being posted. The most famous being Gately was it supposedly didn't have a license to do accounting. It turned out, like virtually all other skeptic hogwash, that it wasn't true. Posted by: Scandle34 Date: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:12:35 PM In reply to: Reseller Mike who wrote msg# 35970 Post # of 36096 what state agency do you know that actually posts new info immediately? It's on a desk somewhere i bet. siliconinvestor.com