Larry, now we've CAUGHT YOU IN A LIE. You are making up stories to post. Here's what you said:
<< They did not make such a promise. During the conference call, they were asked whether orders from their JV partners alone could make them profitable. After some hesitation, they said yes. The promise they made (while chuckling) was that that the revenue in the quarter beginning now would be more than the last several quarters combined. Therefore, their "promise" is that we will see at least $1 of revenue in the quarterly statement that will be released in mid-November. >>
That was not the question asked.
There was no 'chuckling' AT ALL at that point in the call.
FACTS: When Hugh Covington asked about whether R+D stilled covered capital equipment expenditures, the COO (not 'CFO' as you posted on yahoo under your 'nowaynohow' alias), Roy Wright, answered that they were 80% paid on what they had, and this coming quarter would be the last one for big capital expenditures, and the quarters following would see a drop.
Hugh Covington then followed up by asking when they would get 'in the black,' and again it was Wright who answered, and he said that in the quarter following (3Q00, Oct-Dec), because the capital expenditures would drop, they would be 'in the black' as regards cash flow, just based on their expected Hanil and Alliant orders. He then added that of course, the revenue coming in from other orders would therefore add more directly to the bottom line.
A simple statement, Larry, and you have to misquote it on purpose.
Don't you stop working on the weekend?
BTW, the only 'chuckling' I heard during the ENTIRE call was when someone asked later when we'd hear more about FINANCING, and Lev responded 'soon,' then added 'within the month,' and THEN even said 'maybe lots sooner than that.' Then there was general laughter around the table ... and after the call we all saw the SEC filing for the 424B2, the $3M private financing arrangement. Wouldn't you laugh if there was indeed something coming 'soon' that you couldn't talk about because the filing hadn't been made before the call?
|
