>>>>Maybe I had low expectations, but I didn't find the c/c that bad.
I finally got around to listen last night. I was expecting
the worse but it was not that bad in my opinion. <<<<<<
You must have heard a different conference call than I did. What did I think was "bad"? Basically it was the reasons given for missing 4th quarter by about 33% (.25 vs. .37). In fact, the reasons were babbled and almost incomprehensible. "Mobilization of contracts" was one reason given. Now WHAT does that mean--contracts which they didn't get? If so, why not say so, but even more important, also state whether the contracts were subsequently signed!!! After all, it's been over three months ago that they knew that these contracts weren't "mobilized" in the 4th quarter. Was this a temporary or permanent non-mobilization? Inquiring minds want to know--a decent presentation on the cc would have volunteered that info. Does anyone on this board know? The 1st quarter is over, were those same contracts not mobilized in the 1st quarter. WHY weren't they mobilized--that may be important info also, but of course was not provided.
I believe another reason given for missing the quarter was related to the number of shares outstanding? Or was it taxes? Whichever, there was no change in the reporting rules in the last three months--are we really expected to believe that this came as a surprise to them and they just discovered it in the last week? What happened, they got the earnings figures together and then called someone to find out what the tax rate would be or to find out how many outstanding shares there are? If this is true ..........................
Another item in the cc was about coverage by analysts. They started out ok by stating the obvious, that such coverage was not in their control. However, they babbled long enough to indicate that they expected coverage by some analysts in 1998 but couldn't predict when. UGH!!! When will they learn? Aren't we still waiting for the coverage promised before XMAS? Just keep your mouths shut.
People who speculated that the delay in the earnings announcement and coupling it with a cc might not be a good sign were attacked here as believing in conspiracies. No post which I read even came close to mentioning/accusing a conspiracy, just that based on experience the behavior of the company as related to this earnings release had the smell of significantly missing the estimate (estimate repeated "endorsed" by Mike himself with his "comfort level"). These posters were attacked, unfairly, and turned out to be correct (I was not one of them so I am not looking for "credit").
I am long on this stock, but that doesn't mean that management can't be criticized. Too many posters on this board seem to feel that one shouldn't say anything bad about the company or management. Sorry, but it is possible to believe that the company can be run better than it has been, and such posters provide as much valuable info as cheerleaders who are now back to making predictions of $15 or whatever. These are the same people who attacked anyone who speculated that the 1.20 might not be met, and have been predicting all sorts of price action and have been wrong everytime. Yes, Friday was not a disaster. Why? Because the price action had already occurred over the past 2-3 weeks as certain people learned the truth about the earnings. The stock is down about 15%. But, given all the speculation here that 1.20 was a slam dunk and predictions that the price would then be 13, 14 whatever, the $10 closing price being trumpeted here as a "great recovery" isn't a cause for celebration at least for me.
Anyone inclined to respond by telling me to sell the stock and get out if I'm not happy, etc., save it. If you have a response to any of my specific concerns stated above, go for it. |
