from the 10-q:
The following unaudited pro forma financial information presents the combined results of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., the franchise markets acquired and Montana Mills as if these acquisitions discussed above had occurred as of the beginning of the periods presented.
So, for Montana Mills, the numbers are adjusted for the 10 weeks that KKD DIDN'T own it, i.e. the period before April 10. For the 13 week period (Q3) no adjustment is necessary for Montana Mills.
The same applies for the other purchases...is this how you're interpreting the numbers?
... Old Man, its getting so you just can't trust your eyes...
... Do you remember when you said KK paid $170 million this year for 3 franachises and Montana Mills, the 4 of which for which had 9 month sales of $18 million and a net loss of $663 thousand?
... And somebody said this had to be a mistake. And you thought about it and realized you just had to be wrong and that it was you who made the mistake, and you paniced and checked and you took it back, saying it was just Montana Mills, that the franchises were not included.
I've been trying to forget that. A goof. Embarassing.
... Well I just checked again. You were right in the first place.
You mean to tell me that this year KK paid $170,000,000.00 for 3 franchises plus Montana Mills and that combined they had $18 million sales and a loss of $663,000 for the 9 months? That's still unbelievable. Must be a mistake. Maybe its something to do with the accounting?
... According to the 10-Q, sworn to before God. Sales were actually only $14 million. Read it for yourself. Actual Results v. Pro Forma.
Unless I'm wrong again. Still sounds unbelievable. Perhaps younger eyes can confirm or correct?
Ah the Hell with it.
Tarheel, these guys are too smart to do anything criminal. There's been disclosure, and the longs, particularly the institutions should be doing sufficient due diligence to weigh the risks. Nevertheless, the actions of management and the Board have been slimey. Don't you agree. They were above board in making the terms of the Dallas deal public, no question. But does anyone think they were taking care of the shareholders?? Do you? Do they/
Puttemout, you stated: "I have hoped that KKD would issue a Prospectus associated with a secondary so that both the SEC and the institutions would see an open and fair disclosure of their accounting games. If not properly disclosed they would open themselves up to litigation."
You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about. Transactions for KKD stock are already subject to both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of Krispy Kreme's IPO. That is the reason that KKD currently has to file 10-K's and 10-Q's with the SEC. That also causes KKD to be potentially liable to all shareholders of KKD stock for material company fraud. The issuance of a secondary offering of KKD stock would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change KKD's status regarding potential litigation other than give it an additional set of shareholders that could potentially sue. There would be absolutely NO new disclosures made in a prospectus for a secondary offering because items required in a prospectus are already required to be presented in the company's 10-K and other SEC documents.
My Mama always taught me that the fighting gets dirty close to the truth and I believe Diogenes, Divursefi, Generic and I among the more notables has this outfit pegged right on the money. I have hoped that KKD would issue a Prospectus associated with a secondary so that both the SEC and the institutions would see an open and fair disclosure of their accounting games. If not properly disclosed they would open themselves up to litigation. If properly disclosed it would bring into critical light the true economics of the expensive " theater/wholesale bakery concept. All shorts want is a realistic set of books!