Pyr CEO response to question regarding DI Pyr CEO 2 responses in regard to Drosite International :
Dear OTChawk,
Thanks for posting.
Often times there is a difference between legal and accounting definitions regarding the same thing. We are clear in the fillings that from an accounting perspective DI is considered a subsidiary.
We have described the arrangement in considerable detail. What more would you like to know?
Sincerely
Peter
Dear Pennytodollar,
Impressive summary.
Thanks.
Just a couple of clarifications. DI is considered a subsidiary only from an accounting perceptive.
(Do not get me started on accountants. Everybody knows how I feel about the industry. Inside Pyro. Outside Pyro. My board members and our accounting firm. They all must be sick of my rants on the industry by now. However,…since you got my attention…The practice is running scared of their own shadow who as a result have developed a system of reporting that cannot be understood by a basic investor. Can you tell me with a straight face that a basic investor can understand our financials? It is a travesty what the industry has done to financials. The industry keeps changing regulations…not to make it simpler, but to make audits more complex …which…you got it …increases fees. Funny how that works eh? You would think with all the intellect in the world someone would have figured out how to make it honest and simple. Let me finish this rant by pointing out that this was all due to the accounting industry’s big failure with Enron. The irony is that as a result, the Enron event has probably done more to increase revenues to the accounting industry than any other single event since the creation of math. How is that right?).
Oh, another clarification: there were no trade embargos and DI was not formed to avoid a trade embargo. We would not do that as such is illegal.
Besides those two small clarifications, quite an impressive summary.
Hope that helps (rant was a bonus ;-) )
Peter