Seth,
I know I'm the board dunce when it comes to reading financial statements, so please don't be harsh with me if I'm reading this all wrong.
My copy of the April 27, 1998 press release says, Revenues for the March quarter increased to a record $60,828,000, a 71% increase from $35,564,000 in the first quarter of 1997...
My copy of the July 27, 1998 press release says, Revenues for the second quarter of 1998 were $65.7 million, up 66 percent from $39.5 million in revenues reported in the second quarter of 1997.
So, if the contribution to 2nd Q revs from Xyplex was $5.2 mil, couldn't the bears argue that minus Xyplex, sales were flat from Q1 to Q2 1998?
It's not a big deal to me since I think there are reasonable explanations and '97 vs '98 comparisons are great. I just want to be sure I'm understanding the negative arguments. I agree with Saul that it is good to examine the negative arguments.
Bob |
