Skip to main content

To CFO Lawrence Kong: Is BIDZ reporting inventory in compliance with GAAP?

To Lawrence Kong ( CFO):

Hopefully you read my previous blog item that raised a question if (NASDAQ: BIDZ) is complying with GAAP in reporting inventory. I listened to's presentation at Citibank’s Small & Mid-Cap Conference. You explained’s inventory reserve disclosures as follows:

We record a reserve equal to difference between the lower of cost of inventory and the average selling price. This means that if the average selling price for an item is less than our cost we will record a reserve. We also reserve 100% against any inventory that is over one year old. And this is fairly standard practice.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

Sorry Lawrence, you cannot write down inventory to the "average selling price" under GAAP. You can use net realizable value (estimated selling price less costs of completion and disposal) to determine the lower of cost or market in valuing inventory, if net realizable value is lower than cost. may use net realizable value (not average selling price) only when the current replacement cost of such inventory exceeds net realizable value. Did even consider current replacement cost when valuing inventory at the lower of cost or market? Why did use "average selling price" instead of net realizable value?

In addition, you cannot arbitrarily take a 100% reserve against inventory just because held it for more than one year, too. Are you claiming that all inventory held over one year suddenly becomes completely worthless in the matter of a single day (from day 365 to day 366)?

You claim that uses “fairly standard practice” in valuing inventory held for more than one year. Take a look at Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99:

GAAP Precedence Over Industry Practice

Some have argued to the staff that registrants should be permitted to follow an industry accounting practice even though that practice is inconsistent with authoritative accounting literature. This situation might occur if a practice is developed when there are few transactions and the accounting results are clearly inconsequential, and that practice never changes despite a subsequent growth in the number or materiality of such transactions. The staff disagrees with this argument. Authoritative literature takes precedence over industry practice that is contrary to GAAP.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

So please don’t give me that "standard practice" nonsense. Public companies are required to follow GAAP – PERIOD.

By the way, I was reading's SEC Form S-1 dated March 17, 2006 for the company's initial public offering. The prospectus contained the following inventory disclosure:


Inventories consist of merchandise purchased for resale and are stated at the lower of first-in, first-out cost (FIFO) or market. We record reserves against our inventory for estimated obsolescence or damage equal to the difference between the cost of inventory and the estimated market value based upon assumptions about future demand and market conditions. We record reserves of 50% of the value of inventory held for more than six months and 100% of the value of inventory held for more than one year. If actual market conditions are less favorable than those projected by us, specific reserves or additional inventory write-downs may be required.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.’s inventory disclosure for financial statements contained in the S-1 report (above) seems arbitrary and not in compliance with GAAP, too. Did the value of inventory held over six months suddenly drop 50% in a single day? Did compute the market value (as required under GAAP) for inventory held less than six months? Did actually compute the current replacement cost and net realizable value of inventories disclosed the the above S-1 report? What factors and computations did use in reporting a 50% drop in value for inventory held more than six months? The same questions apply to inventory held for more than one year, too.

In addition, you should know that intentional departures from GAAP, even if they are immaterial, are not permitted by SAB No.99. As I detailed in my previous blog item, SAB No. 99 states:

Facts: A registrant's management intentionally has made adjustments to various financial statement items in a manner inconsistent with GAAP. In each accounting period in which such actions were taken, none of the individual adjustments is by itself material, nor is the aggregate effect on the financial statements taken as a whole material for the period. The registrant's earnings "management" has been effected at the direction or acquiescence of management in the belief that any deviations from GAAP have been immaterial and that accordingly the accounting is permissible.

Question: In the staff's view, may a registrant make intentional immaterial misstatements in its financial statements?

Interpretive Response: No. In certain circumstances, intentional immaterial misstatements are unlawful.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

One more thing. During the conference you said that had "a clean accounting opinion." Please don't hide behind your accounting firm. As a crook, I ran circles around my auditors. Therefore, you, your audit committee, and your auditors are respectfully requested to carefully review all of's accounting disclosures from day one in light of the questions I have raised.

Kindest regards,

Sam E. Antar (I am not the Sith Lord but I am a criminal mastermind from the 1980s and a convicted felon)

PS: To the analysts attending investment conferences. Grow a pair of balls and ask smart questions. Softballing is a career hazard. You have been warned by a convicted stock swindler.


Popular Posts

Did a Clever SEC Bait Goldman Sachs into Compounding Its Legal Problems With the "Kiss of Death" Message?

Updated: At 3:48 AM ET 04/20/2010 on bottom

The Kiss of Death

In filing its lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) on a Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission sent what I call the "kiss of death" message to the embattled company. In other words, the SEC wanted to stick it to Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre, the Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International, who is also a defendant in the complaint. While the SEC as a practice does inform target companies and individuals of an impending enforcement action, it does not always tell them exactly when such an action will be filed.

Apparently, the SEC filed its lawsuit without giving Goldman Sachs the heads up that it was planning to file it that day. Business Insider observed that Goldman Sachs was clearly unprepared to respond to the complaint as news of the lawsuit dominated the headlines all day. Goldman issued a short denial around noon and issued an extensive denial late in the afternoon, after most people had … CEO Patrick Byrne Sleeps With a Gun

Suggested Reading: Hatchet Man Judd Bagley's Downward Spiral: Junkie, Confessed Criminal, Admitted Adulterer by Sam Antar (here), and Closing the File on a Criminal and Junkie Named Judd Bagley by Gary Weiss (here)

In numerous blog posts in the past, and in widespread media coverage, evidence has accumulated for years that CEO (NASDAQ: OSTK) Patrick Byrne has shown signs of being mentally unbalanced and paranoid.

Byrne has blamed his company's financial woes on an unnamed "Sith Lord." He hired paid goons to stalk his real and imagined adversaries and to write lengthy conspiracy theories on the Internet. Byrne has close ties with Bo Gritz. The Anti-Defamation League lists Bo Gritz as a far-right extremist with “extensive connections to both white supremacists and anti-government groups and leaders.”

Patrick Byrne's infamous temper tantrums when he doesn’t get want he wants are well documented too. He made obscene and misogynistic commen…

Nature's Sunshine Products, Willbros Group, Cal Dive International, and BSQUARE Violate S.E.C. Rules on Calculating EBITDA

Nature’s Sunshine Products (NASDAQ: NATR), Willbros Group (NYSE: WG), Cal Dive International (NYSE: DVR), and BSQUARE (NASDAQ: BSQR) have recently issued earnings reports which include a calculation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) that apparently does not comply with Securities and Exchange Commission interpretations for Regulation G governing such non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, their erroneous EBITDA calculations have enabled them to significantly distort their financial performance by erroneously reporting a positive EBITDA, when they should have reported a negative EBITDA in the latest quarter.

How EBITDA is supposed to be calculated under Regulation G

According to the S.E.C. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations, EBITDA is defined under Regulation G as net income (not operating income) before net interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. See below:

Question 103.01Question: Exchange Act Release No. 47226 describes E…

InterOil, John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz: Anatomy of a Stock Market Manipulation Scheme

In this blog post, I will provide evidence of what I believe is a stock market manipulation scheme involving InterOil (NYSE: IOC), John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz AG. I believe that InterOil with the assistance of Clarion Finanz concealed John Thomas Financial’s involvement in helping it raise $95 million through a private placement of convertible debt securities.

Clarion Finanz acted as a buffer between InterOil and John Thomas Financial to help InterOil hide John Thomas Financial's role in raising funds. Afterwards, InterOil filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to conceal John Thomas Financial’s role in helping the company raise $95 million in convertible debt.

Carl Caserta, who in 1991 was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission from “association with any broker, dealer, or investment advisor” played a role in helping InterOil use John Thomas Financial to obtain funds from investors. InterOil, John Thoma…

Class Action Complaint against Amedisys uses Sarbanes-Oxley Act Corporate Governance Provisions to Battle Alleged Corporate Malfeasance

Updated at bottom of article

Last week, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Amedisys (NASDAQ: AMED) charging the company, its CEO William F. Borne and its CFO Dale E. Redman with securities fraud.  In the next few days, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed similar class action lawsuits against the company. The lawsuits allege that Amedisys abused Medicare's reimbursement system for at-home therapy care based on a compelling analysis of company revenues in an April 27 Wall Street Journal article.

In addition, the lawsuits innovatively utilize a provision under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 which provides a back-door way for investors to force ethical corporate governance and sue public companies for malfeasance. That provision requires Senior Financial Officers, such as the CEO and CFO of public companies, to abide by a strict code of ethics which broadly defines corporate malfeasance and effectively makes…