More Bannings, Financial Questions
Today "a" aka Ping1400 was banned in the forums for the umpteenth time, Big Oil Rep was also banned. They were most likely banned due to the discussion on Steorn's financials, which started when Big Oil Rep quoted Thicket's questions in the forum here. At first I wasn't connecting Thickets dots, but then nleseul dug this up:
I withdraw my earlier argument. Steorn filed a document with the CRO on April 3, 2007 showing an allotment of 5,284 ordinary shares for a total of 8.4 million euros cash on March 26, 2007.crank may have an explanation:
Shares can be issued up to three years after the money has changed hands, as far as I know. I checked with an accountant friend when that article was published, and the share issue things were downloaded, to see if the shares would have been paid for at the time they were issued. He laughed at meIt would be nice to get a clarification from Steorn on this one. In regards to the phone interview, I didn't get a chance tonight to pull out the good quotes. Hopefully I'll have some time this weekend. If anyone else feels up to the challenge, it would be greatly appreciated!
22 comments:
Oh dear Sean. Are we asking embarrassing questions? Got yourself in a bit of a corner? Can't talk your way out of the financial information fiasco?
The skeptics are banned again. Lol.
It seems that you HAVE been extracting more money from investors, despite your claims that you wouldn't do that. Apparently, it IS all about the money.
You're dazzling fewer folks all the time with your bullshit about magnetic viscosity and the rest of your woo-woo science that's intended to impress the non-technical people.
Crank is doing her best to give you an out, but she hears what she wants to hear. I've bought and sold tens of thousands of shares worth millions of dollars and know full well the delay between buying shares and their issuance. It's a matter of days... weeks at most.
You can squirm and deny to your heart's content. Your own records show that you are continuing to get money from investors.
From ping in the forum.
http://www.rogepost.com/n/1167369200
Dowload .tif to view
This from the previous thread.
http://www.hometown.ie/clrg/section.asp?SECTID=ca2003_s204
Rabbit hole gets deeper.
"Shares can be issued up to three years after the money has changed hands, as far as I know."
How can that be right?? Shares are the accounting of ownership in a company, as well as an accounting of what happened to cash that came into a company at a particular time.
Lets say the company had to be dissolved a year after had someone "paid" for a position in the company and the shares were not yet issued. What a mess!
Also would not such a thing dillute the existing shareholders ownership position??
I can see shares taking time to sell after allotment, but I cannot see how you could take money for shares before they exist!
Please, point to the section of law that says you can buy shares 3 years before they are alloted!
BTW, allotment is different than when someone is issued the shares they have bought. The allotment is the pool from which the shares are issued.
O.K. Believers, all together now;
Fingers in ears, and,
LaLaLaLa, can't hear you, LaLaLaLa........
Not to worry, this is just the financials, I'm certain there is still a OU device. You just have to believe much harder that’s all.
Sean, if nothing else you have provided me with some of the best entertainment I have had for years. I thank you.
Quick point. I would think that even if you accepted the argument (which I don't) of a time difference between money for shares being paid and them being allotted - it should show on the financial statements! Steorn owed people shares. The books would only balance if this "liability" was reflected in the financial statements. They are not shown!
I hope he unlocks the accounts again so I can have another go at getting my Big Oil Rep account banned - I want to go for a record!
I wonder who is moderating their forum at 12:30 at night? I just popped on before I went to bed, made a comment about the investors who had "Paid up to 2,5 MEuro for only 1,3% of Steorn" wanting the jury to hurry up and 10 seconds later I was banned. Heheh methinks they are getting jittery....
@ Thicket
"I've bought and sold tens of thousands of shares worth millions of dollars "
Really ???? could there be a small bit of exaggeration here ? just a lil bit ?
I believe that IF a company chose to withhold shares although money had been received, they would have to show an equal $ GL transaction, typically for a payable account. This entry would offset the increase in assets ($$$) and this entry would be reversed if and when the shares are issued. The books would be unblanced if shares were not issued and an offsetting GL entry was not made on the books.
Is there any indication that a large payable existed to span the gap between receiving money and issuing shares?
@john
No exagerration. It doesn't mean I have millions of dollars worth of shares at any one time, but I've bought and sold millions.
Damn, missed out on my 'who'll be banned next' guess. Knew I should have gone with BOR, he does have 'previous' after all.
I wonder how long Steorn figure they'll be able to string out the bullshit for? I think even the believers are worried - lots have showed up here to have a go at the sceptics that are messing up their fuzzy dreams.
I think the financials are a biggy – it would seem to indicate that Sean/Steorn have been caught telling an outright lie (something which they have been careful to avoid so far).
Just to summarise the two links posted (from ping).
Section of irish company law review site, relevant comment:
"(7) Where a company allots shares, it shall within one month of the allotment deliver particulars of the allotment in the prescribed form to the Registrar for registration."
tiff of a Steorn share allotment document. Dated 26th march, stamped by the registrars office 3 of April.
Seems fairly straightforward to me.
Seans explanation,
@ Agnostic,
"There has been no new investment since August, I said this yesterday and for the past six months. Its that simple.
Sean"
Crank weighs in,
"OK, I've just phoned up my friendly accountant (yet again! he's sick of the sound of my voice). I quoted him the passage that seems to be getting people's knickers in a knot, and I couldn't even explain to him what the problem was? he kept saying "But what's the problem?" :( He said he wouldn't expect financial returns for 2006 to be lodged yet. He said if shares weren't registered within a month it wouldn't matter a damn, unless the CRO had a rush of blood to the head.
Now, I'm not phoning him any more, this is the third or fourth time I've asked him over and over about stuff that he says is perfectly normal, and his wife is starting to think I'm stalking him :("
---------
O.K. Sean is just repeating the standard line, but Crank...
"...and I couldn't even explain to him what the problem was?"
"....I've asked him over and over about stuff that he says is perfectly normal"
-----
So Crank "couldn't even explain to him what the problem was?" but then concludes "I've asked him over and over about stuff that he says is perfectly normal"
So the accountant couldn't understand your question therefore this is all perfectly normal.
Crank, you may want to re-read what you wrote, it makes you sound like a Babcat.
nleseul- So is that new CRO document just reporting various transactions that happened during the first part of 2006, as crank is suggesting?
Sean- Yep, this whole thing is what happens when you have a cynic trying to check accounts with no knowledge at all of what he is talking about - lol, its in a long list of errors that he has made on the subject, including accusing me of selling 750k's worth of shares.
nleseul - Cool, thanks. I bet a point-by-point rebuttal of his interpretation of the financials from you or someone else in Steorn would make for interesting reading, but I'm sure you guys have better things to do.
Sean- This is the latest in a long line of mistakes that he has made, most of them are laughable, some are close to liable and I just have to laugh at it all because he has been trying to find a smoking gun for months, keeps getting the facts wrong and moving on to his next mistake. Life is too short :bigsmile:
--------------
I have seen Sean dismiss many of Thickets findings.
I have yet to see Sean explain where Thicket is wrong.
The CRO filing seems pretty clear. Maybe when Sean said "There has been no new investment since August",
he meant to say "There has been no new INVESTORS since August"
If this is the case then the pre-August investors may still be pouring money into Steorn.
Or Sean could be lying through his teeth. (my bet)
Ah, I think that is all my accounts on Steorn gone again.
Sean said I should have used IP masking, which is assuming I didn't actually want to get banned. Whereas I was in fact going for a banning record.
I had already said who I was anyway.
He still refuses to clarify the financials and just says Thicket's analysis is "wrong". Great.
The March 2007 share allotment is mostly more shares for existing investors, but there are new ones as well. I won't be able to access my Steorn documents until Monday, so I can't give an exact list until then.
One new investor is Crowley Millar Nominees.
Lol about Crank. She's been totally sucked in by Sean and is currently his number one apologist. I think she knows about as much about investment as about physics. I have zero doubt that she couldn't explain the problem to her accountant friend.
It would be hilarious if he was not an investment advisor but a regular accountant. I use my accountant for tax advice and my investment advisors for any questions about shares and other investments.
Perhaps Crank doesn't know the difference.
In any case, the accountant seemed as confused as Crank.
To confirm what several have already said, the financials stamped 3 Apr 2007 by CRO include the statement "The return must be delivered within one month after the allotment". The allotment date is recorded as 26 March 2007.
Okay, the document had to be filed within one month of the allotment of shares. But does that mean anything about the actual payment of money for those shares? Is there any reason why Steorn couldn't have taken the money sometime last year, but waited until the end of March 07 to actually allot the shares?
it would be an unusual investor to turn over his money without some legal documnetation to coveer his money - that is what shares are
(with the hope that the investment would increase in value) Failure to have a legal agreement should cause somebodys accountant a little indigestion at tax time:).
The presence of an agreement should mean that steorn should have a book keeping entry to account for the money and the interest that would need to be paid were it not a direct share purchase. After all where can you get the use of 8 million euros for a year interest free?
As Terry said, there is no logical reason for 13 investors to pay 8.4 million Euros and wait 7 months to be alotted the shares they have purchased.
There would be tax problems for the investors since the payment/issuing of shares would have occurred in 2 taxation years. Depending on the specifics of Irish taxes this could include capital gain/loss provisions.
Also remember that Steorn issued a full list of investors up to September 30, 2006. These shares and the revenue generated weren't on it. There is no reason for Steorn having collected 8.4 million Euros for shares and not reporting them in that report.
People that really want to believe in Sean are grasping at straws that aren't there.
Despite Sean's public statements to the contrary, Steorn submitted records show that they have accepted 8.4 million Euros since September 30, 2006.
Anonymous posted.
"A share in a company shall be taken to have been paid up (as to its par value or any premium on it) in cash or allotted for cash if the consideration for the allotment or the payment up is cash received by the company or is a cheque received by the company in good faith which the directors have no reason for suspecting will not be paid or is the release of a liability of the company for a liquidated sum or is an undertaking to pay cash to the company at a future date."
Yup... if there was any sliver of doubt left, this sinks it. The investors paid, the share is defined as being allotted by Irish law, Steorn has 30 days to report it (which they did). This means that Steorn took 8.4 million Euros in investor money in March 2007.
You've got enough investor money for a nose job, Sean, now that it's grown longer than Pinocchio's.
Once upon a time Sean McCarthy tried to explain why Steorn didnt deliver their financial statements to the CRO on time. Sean said something about that he is an engineer and not interested in accounting and money....
Today it seem that Seans is more of an accountant that an engineer.
My guess is that he has a great success at getting money from investors, but his engineering skills have not yet produced any working OU devices.
I'm an optical engineer. The company I worked for before my present one got around to actually issuing the shares I had accrued four years after I left them. Shares are like paper money -- most money never gets "issued" as paper. (A miniscule fraction of my current salery is ever in physical currency; but that doesn't inhibit my spending it in the least!) It's the records (increasingly, all electronic) that really count, not paper certificates. I don't know about Thicket, but the huge majority of shares traded daily (including all the ones I have ever purchased) never get issued as certificates, but are simply records.
Post a Comment