Posted On: 11/22/2015 12:30:14 PM
Post# of 75043
I copied/pasted the below comments from another site regarding RMHB 1Q earnings. Could someone please help me understand if this guy is on to something or clear out in left field? Mainly, the $650K?
Well that's just flat wrong, in several ways. As with the previous claim that RMHB was LENDING money when it was actually BORROWING money, the claim that the money "was not included in the Q1 financial" is incorrect.
Quote:
It was not included in the Q1 financial.
Glad I was able to help resolve that Borrow/Lend issue, BTW.
Of course Jerry included the phantom $650,000 in the Q1 financial - that's obvious! I really can't imagine how anyone could miss it.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportView...;id=147136
First, a disclaimer. The financial statements are a joke. Anyone with one semester of college accounting would laugh himself silly over them. So, bear in mind that I'm simply REPEATING what's in them, not endorsing them in any way.
Look at the "Balance Sheet" on page 2, and ignore the fact it doesn't really "balance." You'll see that "Deferred Revenue $650,000" is indeed included. How can you say it wasn't? Where's the offsetting asset? You tell me. It can't be "Inventory" since the cans haven't been produced, according to note 3 on page 5. That leaves.... Equity, and the issuance of shares? Who knows, because Jerry doesn't tell you. BTW, did you notice the issuance of 6.5 MILLION new shares? A mere coincidence, huh? Jerry claims $650,000 in deferred revenue, and magically 6.5 million new shares are issued. Jerry claims $500,000 was received, and magically a new $500,000 note is issued. Sure. Complete coincidence.
Now, onto yet another item you apparently missed when you say the Canadian sale "was not included in the Q1 financial." Look at the "Cash Flow" statement on page 4. It clearly lists $650,000 as cash received under "Deferred Revenue." Yet, Jerry says in note 3 that they only received $500,000 during the period. So.. why does he include all $650,000?
The accounting is a joke. It's obviously phony. Don't you agree? If not, then explain the cash flow numbers.
Doesn't it look like Jerry simply issued a bunch of new shares and borrowed a bunch of cash, and is disguising it all as "Deferred revenue?" If not, please explain the obviously "incorrect" (some might say fraudulent) treatment for cash flows?
Well that's just flat wrong, in several ways. As with the previous claim that RMHB was LENDING money when it was actually BORROWING money, the claim that the money "was not included in the Q1 financial" is incorrect.
Quote:
It was not included in the Q1 financial.
Glad I was able to help resolve that Borrow/Lend issue, BTW.
Of course Jerry included the phantom $650,000 in the Q1 financial - that's obvious! I really can't imagine how anyone could miss it.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportView...;id=147136
First, a disclaimer. The financial statements are a joke. Anyone with one semester of college accounting would laugh himself silly over them. So, bear in mind that I'm simply REPEATING what's in them, not endorsing them in any way.
Look at the "Balance Sheet" on page 2, and ignore the fact it doesn't really "balance." You'll see that "Deferred Revenue $650,000" is indeed included. How can you say it wasn't? Where's the offsetting asset? You tell me. It can't be "Inventory" since the cans haven't been produced, according to note 3 on page 5. That leaves.... Equity, and the issuance of shares? Who knows, because Jerry doesn't tell you. BTW, did you notice the issuance of 6.5 MILLION new shares? A mere coincidence, huh? Jerry claims $650,000 in deferred revenue, and magically 6.5 million new shares are issued. Jerry claims $500,000 was received, and magically a new $500,000 note is issued. Sure. Complete coincidence.
Now, onto yet another item you apparently missed when you say the Canadian sale "was not included in the Q1 financial." Look at the "Cash Flow" statement on page 4. It clearly lists $650,000 as cash received under "Deferred Revenue." Yet, Jerry says in note 3 that they only received $500,000 during the period. So.. why does he include all $650,000?
The accounting is a joke. It's obviously phony. Don't you agree? If not, then explain the cash flow numbers.
Doesn't it look like Jerry simply issued a bunch of new shares and borrowed a bunch of cash, and is disguising it all as "Deferred revenue?" If not, please explain the obviously "incorrect" (some might say fraudulent) treatment for cash flows?
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
