Quarterhill Inc T.QTRH

Canaccord… What you say Doug?

[v_guerriero]

$ 2.50 target assumed 162 million cash.  That is down to 108 million post Viziya payment.

Do you cut to $2.00 and keep everything else constant?

Or do you cut ITS estimate and the target to $1.50 and put a sell rating on given the humongous miss on ITS?

Uber bull M partners is the first to cut.  

What does the most accurate analyst on Quarterhill have to say?

[mrmoribund]

The Viziya settlement has already gone through the Q2 income statement. It's part of the net loss and you can see how that plays out in the Statement of Cash Flows--which shows all the steps from beginning-of-quarter cash to end-of-quarter cash. There is no yet-to-come reduction in cash due to the Viziya settlement.

[cabbieJBJ]

I don't think that is correct mrmoribund.   Per the CC transcript: "Operating expenses for Q2 include $15.1 million of other charges, of which $14.6 million is a one-time charge to settle litigation and arbitration disputes with the former owners of VIZIYA. The expense was incurred in Q2 and the payment was subsequently made in the third quarter."

[mrmoribund]

The cash balance for June 30 shown on the balance sheet is not the same as the actual cash balance they had in the bank at that moment. The Viziya settlement amount was expensed in Q2. It was therefore taken out of cash FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES. The actual payment was indeed made in Q3. And Quarterhill may have had the discretion to save the accounting of it for Q3. If they had then I'm

[v_guerriero]

It is in Q2 account payables.  That is part of the reason that the account payable is a staggering $50 million.  Cash will be reduced by $15 million in the q3 statement.   A 10 year fight with Apple... led to $150 million Apple settlement which was subsequently squandered away to McKool Smith, Viziya loss, Sharp/Vizio losses, ETC overpayment. All that is left is debt and

[mrmoribund]

Wrong. It was expensed in Q2. If it was expensed then it cannot be in payables. Payables are things that have not yet been paid AS THUS RECOGNIZED IN THE STATEMENTS. Things that are due to be paid. Again, the Viziya settlement amount would have been in payables except that it had already been expensed. Work on it VG. I know it's complicated.

[Capharnaum]

I'll just say that from an accounting perspective, it can still be in payables even though it's been expensed. That said, it can't "add" to current payables.