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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: coachbobknight who wrote (13152)	2/21/1999 3:59:00 PM
From: Richard Miller	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Ah Yes- I forgot to mention a startling bit of news re: the Long Beach, CA based Crescent Communications. While they were once listed and good standing as a corporation in Nevada, but I understand are no longer, you must be franchised by the Dept. of Corporations to DO BUSINESS in California. Absolutely no record of Crescent Communications in Southern California being licensed to do business in California. A violation of CAl statutes, and the first thing any legitimate business doing a (39,000,000) deal would check. BTW, who paid the sales tax, and to whom. More fraud on the part of CYOE??? Anyone got a friend in Sacramento? Here those guys are Tigers. Probably shut 'em down very quickly... More later. As has been pointed out some time ago, but not mentioned recently. CYOE lied in their initial press release telling the world about the SALE to Crescent. They had to know even Comdisco with their 740,000 shares of CYOE wouldn't buy that. BTW they should have disclosed that, and have never done so to this day. CDO did recently in their 13-D filing. The sale was to CDO, pure and simple. As i recall I checked for UCC-1 against Crescent but found none for a $12,000,000 lease of equipment. Give us a break. I'll verify and report back later. Keep it up gang. This is the stuff that "Fraudulent and misleading information" halts are made of.

To: coachbobknight who wrote (13152)	2/21/1999 5:42:00 PM
From: john harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

<<still to me it smells like PONZI...i don't believe cyoe should be able to book sales to companies that it has a greater than 25% ownership stake in...buying from oneself...>> You're on the right track, Coach. But according to GAAP accounting a corporation does not have to back out intercompany sales under the "equity method" (ie, ownership of 20% to 50% levels). Only in the "full consolidation method" of accounting (ie, greater than 50% ownership) must intercompany sales be reversed out on the Income Statement. Often emerging companies will keep ownership to the 50% or below levels just so they can prop up the sales line on the Income Statement by dumping product on their subsy. Hope this helps. john (mostly a lurker. I read faster than I type)