In the first six months of 1996, MRVC's free cash on hand almost doubled; it increased from to 3.4 million from 1.9 million. I'm not sure you are looking at the correct (or latest sequential) figures. See the figures reported Monday, July 22nd, 1996 for the most recent info.
In short, your "negative cashflow" has been reversed in the first part of calendar '96. This makes sense, as the company intorduced a new switch early in '96. Before that, they were undergoing a merger and ramp-up for new products.
By the way, MorningStar reports XYLN had a negative cashflow for the last few periods. Err...growth companies.
You said:
I stand by the negative cash flow statement. Look at the
December 95 balance sheet and compare it to the most recent one....
Cash available dropped by over 50%.
Also, I think you are correct about XYLN having more cash on hand, and I was wrong. The report I looked at first was before the IPO. But an IPO is really not much different than a secondary offering (which generates cash later) , so I can't see how you can "fault" MRVC for XYLN having an overpriced IPO. MRVC has been traded longer than XYLN and a placement is about due. In fact, this is the very reason MRVC is undervalued in terms of market capitalization...they entered before Fast Ether was hot.
You said:
Not true about XYLN having no cash. If memory serves me
right, XYLN has over $150M in cash from their IPO while if you
look at MRVC balance sheet, it says that cash and equivalents is
less than 3 or 4 million. (Obviously this is why they need to
do the placement since they have to dish out 10M for the acquisition.)
Cheers
Dan |
