Subscribe to this topicForums > Brautigan & Tuck Holdings Public Forum > Topic: Commentary on the Financials?
| Sep 12th 2007, 23:47 IntLibber Brautigan |
Commentary on the Financials? | |
| Now, the critics have been hammering us for weeks demanding financials. They've been posted. Any nit picking? Any cheers? Or pouting cause its evident were not going to fall like some have claimed? | ||
| log in to reply | ||
| Sep 13th 2007, 05:06 Dezmond Martinek |
Re: Commentary on the Financials? | |
| Since you asked. If BNT is doing so well why did you sell off so many shares just before the 1st? | ||
| log in to reply | ||
| Sep 13th 2007, 08:54 Isegrim Nikolaidis |
Re: Commentary on the Financials? | |
| We should not have to demand it. You know very well that seeing the company's financial information is one of the few basic rights that a shareholder (big or small) has. So please dont make it look like you granted us a boon. But what it comes down to at the end of the day is that BNT is your to property to do with as you please, and yes we all knew this from the start. I agree with you that we have not been very suportive as shareholders in these difficult times and thereby damaging our own intrest while blaming someone else for it. As it seems that the depression is slowly starting to recover from its deepest point I sugest that we all put in a more positive attitude and start building a better image of the financial market as a whole. Isegrim. |
||
| log in to reply | ||
| Sep 13th 2007, 11:34 Lindsay Druart |
Re: Commentary on the Financials?
Edited by author Sep 13th 2007, 11:35 |
|
| *scratches her head* Do you always have to be so matter of fact, Intlibber? Wow, your demeanor sometimes is deplorable. And to answer Dezmond's question. He needed the money for the new stock exchange probably. |
||
| log in to reply | ||
| Sep 13th 2007, 13:04 IntLibber Brautigan |
Re: Commentary on the Financials? | |
| Well, we stated last month we would post them Sept 1, and were working toward that goal. Unfortunately, we were sabotaged a bit by the departures of some people who werent pulling their weight, not contributing to getting the financials done, and wasting our time. Dealing with the drama from them since had caused further delays, and I apologize about that. We worked hard to deliver the most accurate data possible, so that we could stand behind the numbers, not just throw stuff out there as I think some may be motivated to do given the complex forms Capex is putting out there. We also found the Capex' financial statement template to be unworkable, complex, and overburdensome. We decided to use the official SLEC reporting template that the SLEC had adopted more than a month ago (and which Capex was entirely aware of), and which we had been working on since then. Capex should not be adopting a different standard than what SLEC adopts for the entire industry. Standardization of data across exchanges is absolutely necessary in order for investors to build confidence in the numbers all listed companies are putting out. As the SLEC has over 70 listed companies as members on multiple exchanges, and they have all agreed to use the SLEC reporting template, Capex should be working with us all instead of creating nonstandard forms of their own that only confuse investors AND CEOs, which are not really applicable to SL business environments, and require a RL paid accountant to complete. |
||
| log in to reply | ||
| Sep 13th 2007, 15:29 Maelstrom Baphomet |
Re: Commentary on the Financials? | |
| Yeah, it's so convoluted I filled out mine just fine. http://www.freewebs.com/maelstrom79/DGD%2DCAPEX%2DFinancialReports.html |
||
| log in to reply | ||
| Sep 14th 2007, 04:35 Guardian Market |
Re: Commentary on the Financials? | |
| OK, here are my off-the-cuff comments. Wow, NAV is only L$0.29? I guess that's what happens when you have 130,000,000 shares outstanding, even if you've got so many SIMs under your belt to back it up. On the other hand, that means the stock is trading below value, so it might be a good value...provided investors would ever pay even fair value for it, which to be honest, Intlibber has given them little reason to do. You pay out over L$2,000,000 per month in payroll and bonuses? Do you really feel this is the best use of such funds, or is having the best effect on profitability? Overall profit seems low for such a large amount of assets. ROA is only 2.1%. Any commentary on that? |
||
| log in to reply | ||
| Sep 14th 2007, 08:00 Lindsay Druart |
Re: Commentary on the Financials? | |
| Well, CapEx has not gone into any agreement with SLEC about accounting procedures to my knowledge. The contract was made with AVIX, which no longer exists so unless the new CEO has signed something using the SL CapEx name, he can pretty much do what he wants. And considering SLEC is a bit of a joke, well....I will stop there on that one. | ||
| log in to reply | ||
| Sep 14th 2007, 09:29 Dalia Ahn |
Re: Commentary on the Financials? | |
| L$ 2,000,oo per month in payroll??? it looks that its better for investors and shareholders to work for BNT rather than invest in it!!!! | ||
| log in to reply | ||
| Sep 15th 2007, 09:11 IntLibber Brautigan |
Re: Commentary on the Financials? | |
| Dalia, Cost of Labor always is a huge cost in any REAL company. We've built a great management team, extremely competent. We made some major investments in the past months, building the best OI there is, for example, completing other major projects. We pay out performance bonuses on all of our commissions to build for others, and have a policy to pay out 40% of construction commissions to the staff that builds those projects. This not only encourages top quality work, its a fair labor practice. The NAV is low primarily due to the depressed value of land. We valued our sims based on our land price structure at this time, not on prior auction or sale price, or some other inflated imaginary price that other listed companies may use (i.e. beware anybody valuing their land over 10L$/sm at the present time), because we felt it was important for the current NAV to reflect market conditions. Once the land market picks up, the value of those sims will rise, and NAV will rise with it. As for the SLEC Lindsay, the only joke here is the idea you can ignore the will of over 70 listed companies. The capital markets want standards, transparency, and disclosure. Without standard means of disclosure across all markets, investors will have difficulty comparing one company against another if different markets use different accounting standards. |
||
| log in to reply | ||
1 | 