NWPG — what changed in the latest 10-Q
A section-by-section comparison of NWPG's newest periodic SEC filing (10-K/10-Q) against the prior same-form filing: paragraphs added and removed per section, with verbatim excerpts. Purely a deterministic text diff — no similarity scores, no directional read, not investment advice.
Comparing 10-Q · 2013-08-13 vs the prior 10-Q · 2013-05-15
| Section | Outcome | Added | Removed | Minor | Unchanged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD&A | Text added/removed | +1 | −6 | ~5 | 34 |
| Market risk (Item 3) | No paragraph-level changes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Controls & procedures | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~1 | 1 |
| Legal proceedings | No paragraph-level changes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Counts are paragraphs; added/removed means text added or removed vs the prior filing — no direction or judgement implied.
Not shown (absent or not faithfully extractable): Risk factors, Other information
Representative excerpts
Up to 5 excerpts of about 300 characters per section, quoted verbatim from the two SEC filings.
MD&A
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2013-08-13
We reported a total comprehensive loss during the three months ended June 30, 2013 of $34,000 compared to a total comprehensive loss of $68,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2012. For the six months ended June 30, 2013, we reported a total comprehensive loss of $81,000 compared to a total comp…
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2013-05-15
We reported a total comprehensive loss during the three months ended March 31, 2013 of $48,000 compared to a total comprehensive loss of $43,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2012. Officer compensation was $30,000 for both the three months ended March 31, 2013 and three months ended March 31,…
In March 2011, accounting standards update on “Troubled Debt Restructuring” was issued. The update clarifies which loan modifications constitute troubled debt restructurings. It is intended to assist creditors in determining whether a modification of the terms of a receivable meets the criteria to b…
In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820), Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS”. The amendment results in a consistent definition of fair value and ensures the fair value measurement and disclosure …
In June 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-05, Presentation of Comprehensive Income, which revises the manner in which entities present comprehensive income in their financial statements. The ASU removes the presentation option…
In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-11, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210), Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities”. The guidance in this update requires the Company to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of its financial statements to understan…
How to read Risk Factors (Item 1A) in a 10-Q
A 10-Q risk-factor section usually takes one of three forms; this page classifies it as one of:
- Pointer — the filer states there have been no material changes and points back to the annual 10-K risk factors; there is no own risk text to compare this quarter.
- Partial update — the filer carves out specific updated risks ("except as set forth below"); the excerpts show exactly what is new this quarter.
- Restated in full — the quarter carries the complete risk-factor text. When the prior quarter was only a pointer there is no prior full text to diff against, so the page flags the section as restated instead.
This describes the filing structure only — it is never a judgement on whether risk went up or down.
Source: text-level diff of the two SEC EDGAR filings · deterministic (no AI-generated content) · for reference only · not investment advice