|
Post by brocephalus on Dec 20, 2011 15:39:29 GMT -5
In terms of gold vs silvers. Need to remember that subscriptions would be automatically converted to I would imagine Stockholders Equity on a balance sheet? For silvers the initial purchases would first be considered a Liability on the balance sheet, then converted to Stockholders Equity after an item is purchased in the c-store. Actually, subscriptions are revenue, SE represents capital on the balance sheet (what the owners put in), in truth, NI will be added to the Retained Earnings (which is in the SE), but this will occur at year end (its kind of a timing difference). Initial purchases would be considered pure revenue (the purchase of CP I mean) in terms of calculating NI. In no way would the Silver accounts be considered a Liability on the Balance Sheet. If anything the cost associated with maintaining the Silver Database server side will be a cost that will be calculated in the Income Statement, which will then be sent against the Retained Earnings Account. This is assuming you are following IFRS, which Cryptic would considering it is a subsidiary of Atari, which is a publicly traded company.
|
|
|
Post by KenpoJuJitsu3 on Dec 20, 2011 19:36:47 GMT -5
Cryptic has not been a subsidiary of Atari for a little bit now. I have no idea if PWI is publicly traded or not.
|
|
|
Post by brocephalus on Dec 21, 2011 1:04:28 GMT -5
Cryptic has not been a subsidiary of Atari for a little bit now. I have no idea if PWI is publicly traded or not. To answer your musings, they are on the Nasdaq, so chances are PWI is a Publicly traded company.
|
|
|
Post by Pion on Dec 21, 2011 16:29:51 GMT -5
ACCOUNTING NERD SYSTEMS: ENGAGED. ....snip... The information is sound, the interpretation of said information by the OP is just down right naive though. It's also outdated, just like it was outdated 3 months ago when it was first offered as proof that Cryptic is "failing." But it's nice to know that even the outdated info says they're doing ok. Not that it matters tho, because next year when peeps be checkin da numbuhz they're only going to see that PWI lost money on Cryptic due to the whole "buying Cryptic" part of the transaction because CRYPTIC IS A FINANCIAL [cold sore] BEING SPREAD IN THE PUBLISHER COMMUNITY LIKE [fresh Maine lobster]!!!!!!!. You can't be uzin logic, G. ;D
|
|
|
Post by brocephalus on Dec 22, 2011 11:01:20 GMT -5
But it's nice to know that even the outdated info says they're doing ok. Not that it matters tho, because next year when peeps be checkin da numbuhz they're only going to see that PWI lost money on Cryptic due to the whole "buying Cryptic" part of the transaction because CRYPTIC IS A FINANCIAL [cold sore] BEING SPREAD IN THE PUBLISHER COMMUNITY LIKE [fresh Maine lobster]!!!!!!!. When peeps report on their financials, they include both operating income (what a firm made through its activities) and its Net income (when it factors all the costs for the year). Savvy investors will look at PWI's Operating Income because it represents a figure that shows the profitability of the company in the long term. Its year to year irregular transactions (like buying Cryptic) represent investments / additions to the business model and do not wholly represent the year figure of the firm. So in other words, those people that call Cryptic a cold sore can't say squat . In all honesty, when someone buys a struggling sub, its usually because they feel there is potential, and because its struggling, they can get it for cheap! Oh and for those that commented on the outdatedness of the report. I am aware I simply interpreted them at the period, but because of my english fail I did not take the time to type up that I am interpreting them at face value during that period of activity.
|
|