Star Citizen Lies, Ramblings, Jpegs, and Bullshit

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

This company, that has never, ever, used an overdraft,

That's false - and you have zero evidence either way. 

Year one. Large profit made. No overdraft.
Year two. Large profit made. No overdraft.
Year three...you get where I'm going I'm sure.

End of 2017 they had millions and millions in the bank. Why would they use an overdraft if they've always had millions in the bank? Behave.

[dsmart]

End of 2017 they had...oh I can't remember, was it seventeen million?

$14M

They've lost around 5million for the last couple of years.

You don't know that because the financials don't include all the details required to determine that.

Then they received 48 million in investment.

The deal closed in May 2018

So me saying they have tens of millions isn't false at all. It's obvious and blatent fact. Have a go at adding 12 to 48 and see what number you come out with. Is it 'tens of millions'?

You should know by now that semantics doesn't work with me. You have NOT seen their 2018 financials. So you have ZERO EVIDENCE that they have "tens of millions" in the bank.

So, with around 60 million dollars in the bank

That's false. And you have ZERO evidence to suggest that the money is sitting there. Heck, even the financial brochure which they released proves that you're patently wrong - in every regard.

and an annual operating profit of around minus 5 million,

That's false. They don't have ANY annual operating profit.

can they remain in business for another year?

Of course they can, if they keep taking out loans and investment to make up for the shortfall in revenue (which isn't enough to sustain the company).

I read it to the end, (the page I linked originally back when my username was shorter), yet it still seems to indicate that CIG is obviously, easily and comfortably, a going concern.

That's false. Either you don't understand what it means (as it pertains to the 2017 financials) or you're being willfully ignorant in your quest to further a flawed narrative

The lawsuit is universally regarded now as becoming inconsequential,

Says who exactly? The judge?

they just got massive investment

An investment that amounts to a little over their yearly revenue isn't "massive". It's akin to a payday investment/loan and stop gap measure. And it's not as if they have massive revenue and can afford to save their cash by using debt financing to operate. They're not Netflix, Amazon et al who do just that.

and they haven't defaulted on any loans that we know of.

Not sure how that's relevant.

They don't need credit because they've never used an overdraft

That's false - and you have ZERO evidence to support this claim which you keep repeating ad nauseum

and have always had cash on hand. They still do.

That's false. Their own financial brochure shows otherwise. Aside from the fact that the $14M which they had on hand end of 2017, it barely what they made the entire Q4/2017. Which means they were running on empty at some point in Q4/2017, heading into their biggest yearly fundraising period.

And as I mentioned earlier, if we took into account the debt (which their brochure doesn't show) load, I am 100% certain that it would show a different picture which supports the fact that they were in fact insolvent. I mean, just looking at the 2017 UK financials and deducting the $5M loan balance alone, already drops their $14M cash on hand for YE 2017. And we know nothing about their accounts payable which, like every business, is sure to include payments due to vendors, rent, loans etc. Suddenly that $14M ends up being a negative amount. Which is why they were looking for investors in 2017, didn't find any mainstream ones who would touch croberts with the longest barge pole, then went to off-shore dark money which usually comes with lots of strings (e.g. a babysitter).

This isn't rocket science. It's math. Yes, it's hard, but you just look dumb and stupid arguing against facts. This is why we just lol at you.

Year one. Large profit made. No overdraft.
Year two. Large profit made. No overdraft.
Year three...you get where I'm going I'm sure.

Profits are amortized year on year. And you're not seeing ANY evidence of "profits" because there is no balance sheet, no cash basis - nothing. Take a look at Frontier's public financial statements.

You have no idea what an overdraft is. Go ahead and show me where that - or any line item - even appears in their brochure.

End of 2017 they had millions and millions in the bank.
Why would they use an overdraft if they've always had millions in the bank? Behave.

You have no idea what an overdraft is or how it works. Not even sure why that's even relevant since an overdraft is just a line of credit. They have one in the UK btw - with NatWest Bank. And that's a FACT.

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

So when CIG say their 'Cumulative net position' is positive million for every year of their existence, they mean...what exactly?

6 million year 1
23 million year 2
25 Millon year 3
19 million year 4
19 million year 5
14 million year 6

https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cfo-comment-2012-2017-financials

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

In any case, you claimed a year ago that they weren't a going concern. Seeing as they're still in business right now, you were wrong. Seeing as they still have money on hand, income, investors and a future, they're still a going concern right now.

[StanTheMan]

You also seem to be forgetting that they have pre sold two games which is how they have gotten most of their money.

That is two games that haven't been delivered and by their own admission are not going to be shipped for at least two years.

In any case, you claimed a year ago that they weren't a going concern. Seeing as they're still in business right now, you were wrong. Seeing as they still have money on hand, income, investors and a future, they're still a going concern right now.

You're a moron.     

The only way they survived in 2018 was to sell a percent of the shares and subject themselves to restrictive conditions about how they could operate. 

Prior to that they had taken out the Coutts loan with large portions of the companies assets used as collateral.

So they were not a going concern then either.

Anyone making a claim that a company is not a going concern is not wrong when said company does something in the future to avoid immediate insolvency.

[Slapmeandcallmegurl]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. They haven't shipped a game for the last six years either yet they still seem to rake in thirty million a year or so. If we assume some level of status quo and some leverage with reducing staff numbers if required then they have enough there to get to 'Q2 2020' for Squadron's beta. Single player game shouldn't take long after that. Obviously, this is CIG so I'm not expecting to be playing it then but, even so, there's enough in future sales and reserve to get that far at least.

Now, if Squadron will see 100 or 100 million extra copies sold on release, is up for debate. I think they'll drum up enough sales to continue working on SC and Squadron 42..ermmm 2. Time will tell.

Exciting though isn't it?

Edit:

The only way they survived in 2018 was to sell a percent of the shares and subject themselves to restrictive conditions about how they could operate.   

How about the fact that they had millions in the bank? Does that mean they were still a going concern?

You're making stuff up when you suggest they needed the loans or investment to continue operations. Pure conjecture. You moron.

(Oh look, I can insult others too, what fun!)

[StanTheMan]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. They haven't shipped a game for the last six years either yet they still seem to rake in thirty million a year or so. I

It is relevant if you are a Backer and it is relevant if you dont assume that there are any consumer or other protection, laws or liabilities in place that prevent a company (or individuals) selling a product and then not delivering it whilst creaming off millions of $.

As Derek has already explained to you...having a revenue stream does not automatically make a business a "going concern" or otherwise solvent, in good order, legal etc etc and you don't get to argue that because you made X millions last year you are a going concern.

You're making stuff up when you suggest they needed the loans or investment to continue operations. Pure conjecture. You moron.

By any reasonable standard someone who has raised over $150 million,  in no small part on the basis that they are running their company without investors and the controlling influence of a Publisher,  cannot go and take out loans,  or sell off shares in the company,  and be judged in fact to have honoured those promises.

One is entitled to assume that just because we might all be living in a vat and there is otherwise no such thing as 100% proof of anything, that CRoberts and his buddies took out loans and sold shares in the company and published some financial information, and all the other history around this project and reasonably conclude that NEEDED THE MONEY and they were not all completely insane or there is some other fanciful explanation why !

[dsmart]

In any case, you claimed a year ago that they weren't a going concern. Seeing as they're still in business right now, you were wrong. Seeing as they still have money on hand, income, investors and a future, they're still a going concern right now.

I refuse to believe that you're this dumb; but simply that you are just trolling us. I can't think of any other explanation.

[dsmart]

How about the fact that they had millions in the bank? Does that mean they were still a going concern?

That's not how a going concern works.

You're making stuff up when you suggest they needed the loans or investment to continue operations. Pure conjecture.

That's not what making stuff up is. It's called speculation. That they took out a $7M loan in 2017, the same year they were in huge losses, had less than $14M (according to them) in reserves, and the same year they were looking for investors, is enough to support the speculation. Heck, their own financial statements support it because it's not as if they didn't need the money.

btw, did you get rid of your alt account on FDev? Maybe you should respond to this.

Something just hit me: CIG declared they spent approx. $193M between 2012 and 2017, yet the funding spreadsheet tells us they "only" gathered $175M by the end of 2017, and that's not counting with refundians...

Well, remember a couple things:

- Those figures have not been audited by an external independent party to CIG.
- The "financials" they have just released do not have a balance sheet, the most basic of all elements in an actual financial statement. And therefore we have absolutely zero idea about the debt/loan side of things. This could also cover some of the gaps you mention.

[Greggy_D]

Why do you guys bother with him?  You keep repeating the same thing over and over and over.

[dsmart]

One is entitled to assume that just because we might all be living in a vat and there is otherwise no such thing as 100% proof of anything, that CRoberts and his buddies took out loans and sold shares in the company and published some financial information, and all the other history around this project and reasonably conclude that NEEDED THE MONEY and they were not all completely insane or there is some other fanciful explanation why !

https://venturebeat.com/2018/12/20/star-citizen-interview-why-chris-roberts-raised-another-46-million-to-finish-sci-fi-universe/view-all/

"GamesBeat: Even with the financials of public companies, like Take-Two and this capitalized software costs thing — it gets a little murky. There’s a lot of mysteries still."

Yup. Precisely what most of us who run companies have been saying. That's why what they released is more of a brochure than a financial statement.

"Obviously in the U.S. you don’t need to do that, but we’ve always — since we’re so open, so public, there’s always a lot of — every time we post every year on Companies House, there’s always debate. People are trying to do the back-of-the-napkin math. “How much are they spending? Do they have enough money to finish the game?” There’s a lot of financial forensics happening."

He's talking about me, isn't he?

"We’re open. We’re public. We’re committed to spending all the money we bring in on development. We’ve told everyone on our backer side that the money we raise dictates the level of development spending and scope of what we’re trying to do with Star Citizen."

We now know this to be bollocks because they have been spending more than they're raising. Hence the need for loans, overdraft, investment

"That was the impetus for sharing the financials with the community. It’s something we’ve discussed internally for a long time, just because we feel like we owe it to everybody who’s supported us. We’re open about development, so why not be open about the other stuff?"

He has perfected lying to an art form. Back in 2015 when I took legal action asking for this, here is Ortwin's response from his Aug 26th response to my attorney:



"GamesBeat: How did some of the thinking go into raising this round? Did you need this for marketing purposes? Does it have to be designated to U.S. costs or U.K. costs, or do you have more free rein to use this money?"

"No, it’s pretty free rein. There are some constraints. I can’t go and buy myself a $50 million yacht with it. [laughs] But both the U.S. and the U.K. companies have issued shares, and it was invested equally there for corporate purposes. The prime thing that we wanted and needed it for was looking forward to the launch of Squadron 42."

As always Shitizens and others like Serendipity are making a different argument that the money is totally for "marketing".

GamesBeat: The two new board representatives, Dan Offner and Eli Klein, are they part of the investment team, or are they appointed by the investors?

Dan is appointed by Clive and Keith to represent them. I’ve known him for quite a few years, actually. I met him when he was at Oculus. He’s obviously got a fair amount of experience in the interactive world, as well as advising and investing and all that stuff. He was helping Clive and Keith as far as advising them on the investment, and so they’ve appointed him to be their board representative.

Yup, babysitter for the high risk $46M. Because, you know, that's perfectly normal and everything.

As we’re getting bigger in terms of valuation and investment, we felt it would be nice to have a couple of outside board members besides just the internal people. Otherwise it was just myself and my brother and Ortwin Freyermuth, our chief legal counsel, who co-founded the company with us. We felt it would be good to have board members that have some other insights. They can help us as we go forward for whatever business needs and planning.

Yes - except for the fact that companies tend to hire external board members for things like this. They don't agree to an investor inserting their own director without good reason. Heck, there are a number of game companies who have external board members who are paid retainers for that sort of thing. So if they needed a board member, they could have done it at any time. Instead, they got $46M and a babysitter as board member inserted by the investors. There's a reason for that: strings.

The whole interview is just the usual drivel that we've seen from him since 2015. And history has already shown that past drivel haven't aged well at all. Neither will this recent slew.

[DemonInvestor]

Hmm when i read the Yacht statement my mind wandered into the field of comics, imagining CRoberts actually asking the investors if he could buy a Yacht with it. Though i've got to say i'm a bit irritated by his focus on Yachts. 

Regarding the whole Going Concern matter.
One has to really differentiate between infestments idea of going concern and actual laws. Investments are somewhat mid/long term, while the actual laws are more focused on short terms.
Ceterus Paribus as an outlook for investments only applies after some analysis of what the next few years will bring. So it again comes down to the personal oppinion about the next years and future costs vs. sales.
What we don't have, is an audited, standardized information - so one needs to be critical. And don't even think audits and such really don't leave room for embazzlement and such...
What we also don't have, is informations on the actual liquidity. But let's play around with numbers, with only two assumptions - linear cost/sales over the years and big investment after Citizencon.
Someone here said 14 millions post citizen con (Oct). That means the rest of year had around 44 - 14 = 30 millions in the rest of the year. That's 2,5 per month. While burning ~4.1 millions per month. So a net loss of -1.6 millions. Meaning their initial 14 millions would have run out in/around October.
Then again we really assumed a bit here and i was too lazy to doublecheck the 14 millions (bank & post citizencon income). But it just shows that point of time information alone can be quite decieving in terms of security of companies.

And even though i'm not as critical regarding the financals as Derek is - though he might have more insight into the company - he's totally right about companies don't simply sell 10% of their shares.

[dsmart]

What we don't have, is an audited, standardized information - so one needs to be critical. And don't even think audits and such really don't leave room for embazzlement and such...
What we also don't have, is informations on the actual liquidity. But let's play around with numbers, with only two assumptions - linear cost/sales over the years and big investment after Citizencon.
Someone here said 14 millions post citizen con (Oct). That means the rest of year had around 44 - 14 = 30 millions in the rest of the year. That's 2,5 per month. While burning ~4.1 millions per month. So a net loss of -1.6 millions. Meaning their initial 14 millions would have run out in/around October.
Then again we really assumed a bit here and i was too lazy to doublecheck the 14 millions (bank & post citizencon income). But it just shows that point of time information alone can be quite decieving in terms of security of companies.

And even though i'm not as critical regarding the financals as Derek is - though he might have more insight into the company - he's totally right about companies don't simply sell 10% of their shares.

Stop this nonsense. You're wrong. I'm wrong. We're all wrong. Only Serendipity is right.

ps: We know that 2018 financials (if they ever release it) wouldn't be any different (probably worse, depending on how they refactor and obfuscate it) from 2017 since that's the year where they were in such dire straits that they had to go looking for outside money which they didn't get until they closed the deal around May 2018 time frame.

[DemonInvestor]

Stop this nonsense. You're wrong. I'm wrong. We're all wrong. Only Serendipity is right.

ps: We know that 2018 financials (if they ever release it) wouldn't be any different (probably worse, depending on how they refactor and obfuscate it) from 2017 since that's the year where they were in such dire straits that they had to go looking for outside money which they didn't get until they closed the deal around May 2018 time frame.

  you got me spreading fud 

Oh i totally think sales won't keep their current levels. The mood was swinging around, as far as i can tell. And i think your analysis of them actually needing money was spot on. But i'm less critical about Chris finding way to keep the whole thing afloat for a bit longer.

[Spunky Munkee]

The trolls are here to be as they are, fools. Let's watch them play in their soiled underpants and stop feeding them.
We can speak the truth smash them over the head with tax filings and they still see what their rose colored glasses show them.

They have nothing new to say. No new pearls of wisdom. Nothing to bolster their case. So lets either ban them, or stop feeding them.