What you've quoted says that the rumor is progressing nicely. Yep, I do believe that. :)
Pumpers can't even get their grammar right, lol.
Thanks, but this is my 4th or 5th short trip with this mutt (lots of posts here by me in real time). I had always been very negative on the company and its methods, (going back to that original shyster Mark Hughes), but I had never traded it - until Ackman got involved. It's been berry berry good to me since. :)
As if on cue, with the price way down - NQ floats the rumor (again) about the fake Bison offer. Same shot, different day. Let's goose the price a little, why don't we?
Transparent to all but the most ignorant.
Still short here (and like Mickey-dees, lovin' it, lol).
Brilliant? Hardly - but you keep saying things that are demonstrably false. Now you can keep changing the subject, and suddenly ask lots of questions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand (your repeated erroneous statements), but that doesn't change the fact that you just don't get the subject, and continue to not get it. Speaking of dense, I haven't seen someone this dense in a long time.
As for "my point it that it is ultimately NOT a liability where a company actually owes cash or other asset." I'm amazed that you just can't get it, no matter how many people try to educate you. If SIGA were to never deliver another course to BARDA, do they owe that cash back to BARDA or not? Deferred revenue should ultimately make it's way into recognized revenue, but that's not the issue. The issue is that you keep saying it's not a liability. It is. Period.
I don't know why you do nothing on this board but fight with people, and always resort to name calling and personal attacks. And asking me about getting laid is right out of 7th grade - you should grow up, dude. You must be horrendous to work and live with. Sheesh, just admit you don't understand the concept of deferred revenue, have trouble admitting when you're wrong, and move on. It's not that hard for most people.
You've been thoroughly pwned. I don't have the heart to continue to rub your nose in it. Argue with someone else.
Oops, I forgot one:
"But it will eventually be credited as revenue once the delivery is met. The revenue itself is not a liability"
No, it is not - that is correct. But the DEFERRED portion of that REVENUE (that thing you just can't see to grasp) is indeed a liability until it is earned (and yes, it's even a credit balance, lol). Why is that so hard for you to get?
Rhetorical question, I know....
Let's review what you've said in this thread:
"Deferred revenue is an asset!"
Wrong, it is a liability.
",they are on that side of the balance sheet, but are there as a credit balance"
Yes, a credit balance (as liabilities tend to be) :)
"Deferred expenses are a liability"
Wrong, they are an asset.
"When the revenues are recognized, you debt the deferred account and credit the revenue account."
The word is "debit" but (amazingly) you are correct. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the incorrect statements you keep making.
"It sits on the liability side... but does it sit as a credit or debit? That's my point."
WHAT'S your point?!? It sits as a credit, as liabilities do!
Seems like you got confused, made some silly statements in error, and now are trying to back your way out of it by claiming you were right all along, trying to make some (as yet to be revealed) point. But there is no point to be made, since you have yet to make one that makes any sense, or explain why you kept making statements that were wrong.
Do I have it about right?
This is kinda fun, but I'm bored already - and I'd rather be trading. :)
"Deferred expenses are a liability"
All I have to say is OH.........MY..........GAWD..........
There really is something wrong with you.
That hole is now a sinkhole. Please stop. I'm begging you. Stop, before you hit China. Put down that shovel. Now.
Can anyone imagine living with this mutant?
You see, that's the self-control I mentioned. Rather than check your facts, you reacted from defensiveness, and instead just dug that hole deeper. They say you should quit digging, etc., etc........
Yes, deferred revenue is a liability, and not a negative one (whatever that is, lol). You clearly have a problem understanding the concept, but I'm not interested in schooling you on
basic business accounting treatments. Take 5 minutes and do it yourself. Might help that problem you have, of always losing money on your investments.
My work is done here. :)
You should probably consult an accounting book (or perhaps Investopedia) before uttering such idiocy.
You need to learn some self-control.
You need some new material. You keep posting the same sludge every day, often multiple times per day.
Hopium. Just say no......
LOL, you could go back through the past 4 years, and see me saying (whenever others suggested that they settle) that there was absolutely NO CHANCE of that happening, due to their hatred of each other. They've always let that hate spite themselves, and I doubt that will ever change. Like I said, you were spot on re: the original Parsons formula. But once that changed, there wasn't much left for them to do.
As for wiping out the s/h equity, their management has shown repeatedly that they care not a lick about the shareholders. They've lavished themselves with option grants and large salaries, and have never made communicating to their shareholders even a token gesture, save the barest of bare minimums. My guess is that they knew all along this was a losing case of theirs, thus their own shares would never be worth anything -so "let them eat cake" became their strategy. Get what they could from the company, while they could. And now this.
We're on the same side, we just disagree on what was foregone and what was not.. Not a big deal, considering.......:)
It was foregone because any further appeals would require a cash bond in excess of what they have available. If they were going to appeal, this was their only move to forestall any enforcement action by PIP. It wasn't unexpected, imo.