I don't really follow you on the going concern projections so far,
Yeah, "going concern" is a simple concept that is somehow hard for mere mortals to understand.
I explained it as best as I could in my Tweet storm to him this morning. Here's another way to look at it:
1) company needs $4M per month to operate; which means $12M per quarter
2) at the end of Q1 of that year, they had $16M cash on hand, and they are making $4M per month. They are "going concern" because the income is self-sustaining as long as it remains constant and/or exceeds current levels of income
3) something happened and in Q3 they had $8M cash on hand, and they are making $1M per month. They are now no longer a "going concern" because with that cash on hand, coupled with the reduced income, they will be insolvent (expenses exceed income) by end of Q4
4) they go out and get a loan, investor money etc and they are once again a going concern for a period of time. btw this is the very basis of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing during which companies use that period to not pay any bills, until they can restructure via cost cutting measures, new cash, debt financing etc.
In the case of CIG, in Q4/15 (Oct to be exact) they were rumored to have cash on hand for 90 days (end of Jan 2016), and at their growth rate would no longer be a going concern by end of Q1/2016.
In order to prevent that, they started doing all kinds of shady sales shenanigans to raise enough cash to sustain their monthly burn rate.
That's all there is to it.
In the case of F42 group, if anything happens to the CIG/RSI parent, they will go under
immediately because they are in debt, and have NO independent source of income other than what they get from the US parent. As per their 2017 filing, by the end of Q1/2017, they had enough cash on hand for barely 1 week of operating costs. Which, by all accounts, means they were insolvent. Of course they are still around a year later because the parent is still financing their operations.
but i follow you on their inability to deliver what they promised. And that the changes of TOS and overal sales behaviour implicate problems. An analysis i'd be really interested in, is how many project leads they lost over time, while them not having finished their job. As those key positions indicate how likely they'll finish with the project. But i guess those an analysis would be hard to do.
Nobody knows or cares to track that sort of thing. It's not relevant in the general scheme of things because having the same people on the project doesn't mean it's going to fare any better. They've proven that much already via their inability to finish a SINGLE game after 7 yrs and $191M.
People come and go all the time. The issue is that replacing lost experienced people, with new inexperienced ones, tends to be the quicker path to failure. Especially in the software industry.
