My comments in Red:

Quote Originally Posted by blah View Post
Maybe I'm not reading the financial statements correctly, but from what I see, even if we strip out SNK out of the statements I think it is still very very impressive. I'll need to see more detailed statements and the notes of the statements to be sure though.

Revenue in FY 2012 was only $15,000 [that was Claridge Capital not SeaDragon]; FY 2013 was $8,999,000. From my limited knowledge of accounting, asset appreciation shouldn't be treated as revenue [it isn't]; or at least should be treated as a separate item [it is]. Lets be charitable and say that it was indeed included in the revenue figures [again it isn't]. Seadragon owns 25m shares in SNK; the share price on 31 March was 0.15c [actually closed at $0.155] - valuing SEA's stake in Snakk at 3.75m at that date. Even if we take the entire $3.75m out of revenue (let alone the appreciation over the previous year's valuation) we are stll left with revenue a healthy bit over $15,000: about 35000% revenue growth.

However, I have a hunch that this SNK value appreciation has not been included in revenue, since the cost of sales of 7.8m suggests that the 9m revenue solely is trading revenue [correct].

Having said that, I don't know why there has been no cost of sales for the 2012 year [2012 is for Claridge not SeaDragon].

I also note that in the balance sheet, the 3.9m figure under the heading "Assets classified as held for sale" I suspect is Snakk [correct]
SeaDragon was reversed in Claridge Capital so the 2012 accounts refer to what was basically a non-trading shell of a company.

Reading the commentary will help you.

Ignore janner he appears to be drunk in charge of a keyboard.

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger