It is a refreshing change from the way most of the newer companies are presenting their results. (If it were not for the fact that we had expenses, the meager revenue that we had would have been profit, we did however beat the street profit estimates by $.02 per share because we only lost $1.87 per share rather than $1.89, as long as you ignore research and development, capital expenditures, depreciation, non-recurring expenses, and include the interest we earned on what is left of the cash we still have from our IPO.)
I think that there is generally not enough appreciation for the fact that increasing revenues by 1000% of $100,000 is quite a bit easier than increasing $1,000,000,000 by 35% which is still easier than increasing $10,000,000,000 by 20%.
They are still a great company. Which doesn't mean that their stock is going to increase in value at the same rate that it has in the past. Which is not to say it will not provide an appropriate return. |
