RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:GOOD INFORMATION FROM THE CONFERENCE CALLYou are telling all of us that financial statements don't reflect the reality, not even close given that we are talking about a $10 million amount. Someone completely new to PYR will look at the financial statements and based on just the examination of the financial statements would walk away with a completely, materially different impression than the reality.
OK. We shall end this there. That is what you believe, it doesn't sound right to me but it sounds like sense is not supported by GAAP.
The key outcome of this is collection of the amounts owed. Looking forward to seeing NRs that that is happening so that the liquidity risk can start decreasing.
Melida wrote: This is wrong. I'll take the time to explain it to you. GAAP requires that the initial repayment terms remain the terms that are applicable to the financial statements. If a company could just amend the terms of repayment, the company could thereby cover up past due account. This would result in an innaccurate accounting of what may have occured.
Pyro followed GAAP, as required. Pyro has to show the receivable as past due. The comments during the conference call (the one you haven't listened to) clarifies what is actually happening. As stated in the conference call, the amount in question "is totally collectable."
I'm relaying what got said specifically and what GAAP requires. I'm not sure what you're trying to say and I don't think you do either. Listen to the conference call. It's as simple as that