RE:RE:RE:GOOD INFORMATION FROM THE CONFERENCE CALLMy understanding is that accounting standards allow for changes when there are changes to transactions. My understanding is that users of financial statements would be misinformed if they thought that an account receivable is due within a year when it is actually a long-term receivable due beyond the year which would then appear under non-current assets as opposed to current assets. It would skew liquidity ratios that are commonly analyzed and sometimes used as debt covenants.
You are misspeaking when you accuse me of "bashing on the basis that it's this monumental past due receivable that will move Pyro into insolvency". I don't care where PYR gets money to pay the bills, but always thought that the $10 million receivable, based on satisfied terms of a contractual obligation, would be the most significant and perhaps the quickest way to improve liquidity.
If you call the elevated risk of insolvency bashing, please refer to note 2 of PYR's financial statements that speaks of conditions that "may cast significant doubt....". If the company is not bashing itself, then you can feel free to say that accounting standard setters and its auditors are bashing the company by making them write this risk factor.
Did 3P state when the AR will be collected? If it's based on amended terms of a contract, then he should know. A couple of months ago he said it would be fully repaid within Q2. So, I take it now that the description says that it will commence being collected in Q2, there had been another contract amendment since then.
All these comments are based on your description of what was said at the conference call. I trust that you are doing your best to be as factual and accurate as possible.
I think we've beaten this one up. We will just wait to see when it will be collected and what business may come out of this continued relationship.