Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : HSS Hars Systems - Internet Travel -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MCrow who wrote (66)	7/8/1999 2:36:00 PM
From: keith massey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 127

Maggie I caught that one also. I hate when companies clump 6 month results together. It forces you to minus off the 3 month results to find out how they really did on the last quarter. Their advertising costs are up and there admin. cost are up. I'm not sure if they are trying to grow fast by re-investing revenues or have some fundamental problems. They are still in the green but not as much as I would like. Revenues are down compared to the last quarter for one of the first times which is a big puzzle. If they have way more customers and are doing more advertising then why are the revenues down? I am looking forward to the next quarter to see if we have a problem on our hands or just a lousy quarter. I still haven't bought any back. Best Regards KEITH

To: MCrow who wrote (66)	7/10/1999 2:56:00 PM
From: VisionsOfSugarplums	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 127

Hi, MCrow. Just catching up on the weekend here and saw your post. Re the Management Discussion on the website. I do believe they have made an error in the information posted there. If you look at the numbers listed on the website under the heading "For the six months ending March 31, 1999, HARS Systems, Inc....", it appears to me that they are actually revenues from the three months ending December 31 and the columns have been transposed - so that 1999 numbers are reported under 1998 and vice versa. Here's the numbers from their financials filed on SEDAR: For the three month period ending December 31,1998 1997 Revenues $2,602,691 $2,138,826 Net income $128,646 123,941 Net income per common share 1¢ 1¢ If you compare these to the website, you'll see what I'm talking about. Cumulative numbers for the six month period ending March 31, 1999 1998 are: Revenues $5,267,607 $4,504,279 Net income $191,628 $ 261,313 Net income per common share 1¢ 2¢ Working backwards, these are the actual three month numbers for Q2: For the three month period ending March 31, 1999 1998 Revenues $2,664,916 $2,365,453 Net income $62,982 $ 137,372 Revenues have increased over 1998 whereas net income decreased, the latter mainly attributable to increased marketing expenditures of $181,264, offset by a decrease in administration expenditures of $52,267. As an aside,revenues less operational expeditures are equal between Q1 1999 and Q2 1999, which leads me to believe that they could be using estimates or that fees paid may change upon a certain level of transactions being achieved. Addressing the fee issue is an excerpt from their Press release dated July 9, 1999: <<Bringing the reservation delivery system in-house will eliminate significant annual transaction expenses called for in the former Intermezzo service agreement.>> I think they've PR'd some new deals that should further increase revenues as well (ex/ the European deal with Mirror Image). Hope this helps. (Another aside - when a company is active, I've found that the first thing to go is reviewing numbers and details of PR's, websites, etc. You'd be amazed at some of the doozies you catch last minute. Don't know if it was the webmaster or sloppy review procedures that caused what looks like an error to me on the VIP website, but there you go..) Regards, t.