<<I don't know worse numbers than large losses as they disclosed. further, they have given out no, i repeat no, projections.>>
Darrell, there could be much worse news in the full financial statements besides the $1.6 million loss in 1997.
For example, are revenues up or down? If revenues were increasing, a loss is more palatable than if revenues are decreasing.
They mention total assets and shareholders equity but they don't mention what their working capital status is. If they have no working capital or negative working capital, at the same time they are losing big chunks of money, there is a question of how will they remain solvent? With a low share price, negative working capital, and operating losses, about the only way to remain afloat is through massive dilution.
<<further, they have given out no, i repeat no, projections.>>
Darrell, the following looks like a projection to me. expage.com It looks like a projection that revenues from 1998 to 1999 will be up by about 80%. With absolutely no substantiation. I remember a few years ago when the company earned about 1/10th of a penny for the year projected earnings of 40 cents per share in the following year.
Such projections are another reason I'd like to see the full financial statements. If I recall correctly, the $2.8 million they say was their 1998 revenue is lower than revenue from a few years ago. If revenues are, in fact, declining, what is the basis for a projection they will now shoot up by 80%?
Sorry, but I see a lack of complete financial disclosure, I see talk on the internet of a "turnaround," I see discussion of promoters sending mass e-mails touting the stock, I see hypish PR's about gold mines, I see rosy projections from the company with no substantiation, and I smell pump and dump. |
