So mister brilliant guy with the superiority complex.... please tell me (yes or no) if that entry will likely end up on the P&L or not?? And, when (not if) it does, where will it end up? Above the line or below? Is this ultimately a revenue or an expense??? So you're really the one making a fool of yourself. I understand where the GL account actually sits on the BALANCE SHEET, but my point it that it is ultimately NOT a liability where a company actually owes cash or other asset. Are you this dense in real life ofr just over the internet? Anyone with such a passion for accounting has to be a real tool. One last question, have you ever gotten laid?!? By a woman, I mean??
It sits on the liability side... but does it sit as a credit or debit? That's my point. Deferred revenue has not been recognized yet because it is not complete or may be a part of an advance payment. But it will eventually be credited as revenue once the delivery is met. The revenue itself is not a liability.
,they are on that side of the balance sheet, but are there as a credit balance. This moron isn't understanding what in saying. When the revenues are recognized, you debt the deferred account and credit the revenue account.
Deferred expenses are a liability you moron. Stop outsmarting yourself, it's embarrassing for you. Next you'll say the a/p account is an asset!
You're saying deferred Revenue is a liability?!? And I need to consult a book?!? A negative liability is an asset dummy!
How do you have future orders showing on the books as a liability?!? Dumbest thing I've ever heard....bit it's obvious why you WERE an accountant.
Send your comments to KCSA or call them and voice yourself. They NEED to hear it. The more pressure they get from outside investors, the more they are FORCED to bring it to the attention of the BOD. Make them EARN their money!
Has Eric Rose bought ANY stock out of his own pocket?? The stock is LOWER than the IPO and under 1.50 per share and HE doesn't think it's worth it?? How would he expect any retailer to buy?? Know why? He DOESN'T GIVE A TURD! Period. That is NOT the kind of CEO you need.
You're wasting your time, the guy is a complete buffoon and looney. He's been screaming to buy SIGA for years and years and years (no joke) and has been telling everyone to thank him when it's at $25 (also no joke). He has not been right one time and only jumped on the NFLX bangwagon as a "burn" to me because I was shorting it a while back. He owns not one share and is too dumb to realize it doesn't bother me AT ALL because I am no longer short. Ask anyone, he is hands down the craziest poster on the SIGA board, ever. And that's sayin something....
(1) You're obviously a liar
(2) No one with that kind of money would actually waste their time on another anonymous person
(3) You're also clearly STUPID as can be because I stated a LONG time ago I had covered my short
(4) My children will go to college and be much better at everything than any rodent offspring that you produce
Why do you keep posting this nonsense??? When have management updated or talked about their drug in the last 12 months even??? This company is a joke.
Show me another CEO of a small biotech that has NEVER made a net profit that makes $1M per year and never does a thing to promote or better the company. It's an absolute joke and fraud, if you ask me.
CS, I read most/all of your posts and responses and, while they sound well thought out and very reasonable, it seems to me that you're losing this debate here. You KNOW I'm long, but I think it's time to realize that SIGA just F-ed up big time and left us shareholders out to dry. The things that frwdlook are stating seem more sound and logical, although I don't know the details of this Daubert case law, nor am I an attorney. One thing that I have been thinking about is the piece around PROFITS, that there must be reason to believe that future profits were not speculative. In the Baliban model (Which I have no access to), does he analyze only sales or profits as well? If it is only the potential market/sales size, shouldn't the SIGA lawyers attack the overheads and COGS side? In other words, at the TIME of the breach, did either party know with reasonable certainty what the COST would be to actually produce this drug?? I mean, what if the overall costs were $110 today? Assuming $100 per course would actually lend itself to a net LOSS on the drug, meaning future profits were never even possible. Am I making sense?