Bart,
From Sanctuary Woods 10Q (available through SEC's Edgar,
dated 8/14/96:
Net income for the Quarter ended June 30, 1996 was
$342,978 compared to a net loss of ($3,262,300) for
the quarter ended June 30, 1995 and a net loss of
($4,514,171) for the transition quarter ended March
31, 1996. The net income for the June 1996 quarter
was primarily due to the gain of $897,260 on the sale
of the Company's Victoria studio. The net loss from
operations for the Quarter ended June 30, 1996
totalled ($477,910) compared to a net loss of
($3,242,754) for the same quarter one year ago. Net
cash used by operating activities was ($1,477,488)
for the quarter ended June 30, 1996 as compared to
net cash used by operating activities of ($2,408,226)
for the same quarter one year ago. At June 30, 1996
the Company had $88,447 in cash and bank borrowings
totalling $1,135,904.
My detailing of $4.5M was from the quarter ending 3/96 when
SW still had the Entertainment Division. My contention is that
since they off-loaded that division, their workforce dropped
from 140 FTE to 43FTE, and substantively their losses dropped
from $4.5M to roughly 400K for the recent quarter.
I appreciate your other perspectives...but if their internal
development is so limited, how are they able to turn out six
new titles since the last quarter, and have another set to
go next year? Next, isn't Mario 64 an entertainment title?
What does that have to do with education. Are you suggesting
that education will fall to entertainment? Or does Sanctuary
Woods represent a merging of the two that makes learning fun.
How does Mario 64 teach children about Math and Reading?
Finally, I know next to nothing about mistreatment of internal
developers. Thus, I am not able to comment on whether this is
fact of just some former employee who is upset with a personal
axe to grind.
Please don't misunderstand. I am not suggesting that this is another
INTC, CSCO, or MSFT. I am suggesting that at .25/share this might
be a fun speculative investment that people can make. Earlier
you or others suggested that this company was a "bad" investment
for people to make, and that the recent investees were really
making a mistake (suckers). However, those "suckers" appear to
be large investment groups who typically don't invest the way
they did without some idea of what they are getting into. Other
smaller investors are risking "little" at these prices and thus
may benefit from a run-up in the share value (such as what has
happened this past week).
Thanks, Kent. |
