CPA Questions the Claim that USCF lost a lot of money under Schultz

On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 05:10:52 GMT, "StanB" wrote:

DoanFamily wrote in message

It sounds like when you take into account the writeoffs and the correction to the handling of the CC entries (which sounds like a long overdue correction but certainly shouldn't have been charged against last year), that the true 1999-2000 loss was about 150K. Does that sound right?

More or less, from ops.

This is not to minimize the cumulated losses of the last few years, but some of what shows up in last year's books were really losses that should have been attributed to past years.

People have been throwing around a million bucks, but in 1996 when they had a 10k profit net assets were 199,656. At 5/99 they were -182,379 for a decrease of 382,035. Not a million. Even if you blame Schultz for 5/00 the decrease is a total of 685,990. And, 400,000 of that came from the increase of the estimate for the life member liability. he really lost about 300k most of which was directly related to the software fiasco. Another significant amount came from the writedown of inventory he inherited from a prior administration.


This is exactly the kind of information I have been looking for and the reason why I have been insisting on consolidated comparative financial figures. It is also the reason why Tim Redman has been insisting that this information "is not very important" and has therefore been refusing to provide it.

For example, you say that $400,000 of the "loss" from the Schultz period came from the increase of the estimate for the life member liability. Since the real LMA liability did not increase during the Schultz years, but must have decreased, this $400,000 was not really lost at all.

Still, more details of the kind normally made available in consolidated financial statements are needed. For example, how much did the estimated LMA Liability increase in every year?

It appears likely that in real dollars, as opposed to write-downs of obsolete inherited inventory and increase in the estimates of LMA liability, the Schultz period lost nothing at all. If true, this would be an embarrassment to the current Executive Board majority.

In a recent newsgroup posting, Redman said:

"The Annual Report was held up because of a disagreement as to how to best correct the historical record. That problem was solved in Miami."

We now look forward to seeing how Redman best corrects the historical record.

Sam Sloan

Here are links:
Sam Sloan's Chess Page

My Home Page

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: