% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

LiveWorld Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • bbkingagain bbkingagain Oct 27, 2011 9:37 AM Flag

    GREAT report

    A public company has a responsibility to all owners - stockholders - to present audited financials, otherwise nothing can be certain.

    They said they were too poor to do so and allowed the stock to delist. When you look at the past and even current clients - that doesn't look like a co - particularly a publicly held co - that is too poor to audit.

    If I was a major corp looking for the types of services lvwd provides - and I saw their lack of audited financials -

    I guess I'd want the services super cheap or go elsewhere.

    So it's possible that spending $50k to provide every shareholder with the "facts" could actually be beneficial to the corp interests - if growth is an actual corp objective.

    Is growth even an objective?

    Who's hurt by being audited? If the concept mentioned ever plays out in the real world - the revenue opportunities lost could be the difference! If the audting cost is enough to sink this ship - then we might as well pull out the life vests and wait for the sharks.

    I, in no way, want that - but being long in the shares about an eon, I'd like to see it make a real move - in either direction.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • i've made good money on pinks that don't even publish any financials.
      first things first, auditing is secondary to not having a p.r.
      and if they had a great story to tell and wanted to attract shareholders they'd get the money by issuing shares if they had to to hire an auditor. heck, maybe they do get audited and don't tell anyone, maybe the board of directors requires it, whoops, what board?

      email and ask him why no p.r.
      they haven't gotten to work yet, maybe they will issue one but i doubt it.

      what i don't get is why the announced the date/time of earnings? why bother when noone reads their website? plus why list sec documents that are totally irrellevent?

    • You've made a great argument that the expense of an audit shouldn't sink the ship. If that's true, then what you're left with what the auditors would make them say sinking the ship, no?