noble, I have only a small position in Chng and have not done much review of their financials since my purchase. You are correct that the LT debt could be moved to the current liabilities section of the Balance Sheet due to default (non-payment) or Chng breaking some other part of the loan contract which would make the loan callable on the part of the lender. Most common reason for transfer to current liabilities section is that the loan, or a portion of the loan, becomes payable within a year of the financial statement.
Fascinating to watch Musk work. Still hard for me to believe that the CEO of such a visible American company is willing to break the mold so frequently via tweets and other advance teases. He clearly is different. Time will tell whether or not his confidence in himself and his product is justified. I do think I will short Tesla at some point but consider myself lucky not to have done so when I started looking at it at around $36. The financials still indicate enormous risk with this stock.
I did not do research to form an opinion on whether or not the accrued interest on the books is accurate. Only made the comment to inform readers not familiar with accounting that if the accrued interest is on the Balance Sheet, it came via the Income Statement. If the new rate is 20%, the auditor is unlikely to miss that.
If your statement that the interest is included in Accounts Payable (probably would be Notes Payable), then the income statement bottom line will be correct. To get to A/P or N/P on the Balance Sheet, the cost of the unpaid interest would have to have been recorded on the Statement of Income. Thus, bottom line would be accurate.
1. Tesla is running out of cash.
2. Investment bankers told Elon Musk that there was no interest in another share offering at $30 + per share.
3. Musk decided to attempt to keep the stock price at current level by doing a personal funding of the cash needed.
3. His PR people told him to get in front of the story and frame it as Elon thinking the personal funding was his reaction to "a great opportunity" rather than the story being framed as Tesla desparate for cash.
4. His ploy will work because he is Elon Musk and the financial news media love him.
Time will tell but I think that within 2 years the vulture capitalists will get this company for peanuts.
PMT is priced at about 120% of book value and I think that is a barrier tough to overcome. I stopped buying at 110% of book and believe many other value investors also look closely at BV with REIT's.
I see China government policy changes to be a long term positive. At least they seem to be ahead of the game unlike our government was in the 2005 to 2007 housing price bubble. We would have been much better off if Fannie and Freddie had cut back on very loose loan eligibility requirements in 2005. Instead, they went the other way. Remember "liar loans" and 5% down loans, etc.? China has plenty of rural to urban migration still ahead. They will fill up the ghost cities withing a few years. Most of the units in those ghost towns were bought with cash so there is no panic at this point.
In the Bush days they were called hamburger flipping jobs. Any which way you cut it, the jobs are primarily service jobs at $10 per hour. It's a start, but not great.
CNBC shills remind me of high school cheerleaders. They see their job as cheering all things for their team (USA) and booing for all things for the opponent (China). As posters below mention, China residential property is MUCH less leveraged than we were in 2005 to current. The CNBC shills and Wall Street touts think that somehow Bernanke's $1 trillion per year stimulus can just be cut off someday in the future and we will not have ill effects from it. Look at cash in the bank: China's federal government has trillions. USA federal government has trillions of liabilities.
There have been many, many articles over the past 3 years about the impending crash of China's real estate market. Hasn't happened yet. Although property prices have risen significantly relative to their inflation, there appears to be several significant differences between China 2013 and USA 2007.
1. Most loans in China are 30% or more down payments.
2. Many purchases in China have been cash.
3. The Chinese government seems to recognize the risk is taking steps to reduce it.
This is in contrast to 2007 USA when anyone able to walk into a mortgage broker office could get a loan, and via Fannie and Freddie guarantees, no one on the originating end cared about the lax qualifying standards or the outright fraud on applications.
I expect a correct in China, but not a collapse like we had.
Most of our national news media is from the political left, and do not like the comparison of China's growth (7.5%) to our growth (1.75%) even with enormous Fed. government borrowing. Therefore, the news media is predisposed to find fault with China and any other country that is doing better than we are. Where was 60 Minutes in 2006 when we were "giving away" mortgages to anyone who walked in the door of a mortgage broker? I think the 60 Minutes audience would be better served by doing a program about our $16 trillion debt, and 4 consecutive $1 trillion annual budget deficits.