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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : LGOV - Largo Vista Group, Ltd. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jan_mike who wrote (4436)	7/31/1999 9:32:00 AM
From: on parole	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7209

Good responses jan mike, most of bulls points are absurd as you point out. He is comparing apples and oranges. It is a penny stock which is just reporting. This in itself puts it above many others. The dilution is minimal from the prior period and you at least have to have the ability to understand the strategic importance of the company with their licenses and the market they are in. It ain't IBM and if he thinks it is he's miscalculated his bet and on the wrong board. What are the chances of a double from here vs. IBM doing so? :-)

To: jan_mike who wrote (4436)	7/31/1999 1:36:00 PM
From: Phil(bullrider)	Respond to of 7209

jan mike, <Don't forget about office rent. $4k per month for two people. No wonder Dan is available to answer the phones at almost any time, he is most likely lost in the office and looking for his desk.> This doesn't seem like either a large sum or a relatively large rental sum to me. Not worth examination. $48,000 per year for office space for two people for a company that generates $75K per year in gross profit and is losing over a million dollars a year doesn't seem even a little out of line? <Now we get to XINMAO. The people that generate the money for LGOV. There are reportedly 84 employees that make $46,000 annually. ALL OF THEM - INCLUSIVE Anyone that doesn't see a problem here?> I would have expected this to be a little higher too, but a billion Chinese willing to work for slave wages isn't news. That's their entry ticket into the world economy. Cheap goods produced by cheap labor. Another company CEO once told me he could hire at least three fully qualified engineers in Malaysia for the price of one in New York State. You complain about high salaries in one paragraph and low salaries in the next one. How's that work? I wasn't really complaining about high salaries or low salaries, simply the difference. You have 84 people in China generating all of the revenue for $46K per year, and two people in the US burning $513k per year. And one of them is always available to talk to shareholders. At least reportedly. < Now for the good news. In 1997/98 they lost $2,732,268. Last year they only lost $1,095,991. They only lost half as much in 1998/99 as 1997/98. They only sold half as much also. Does that mean if they quadruple sales, they will quadruple losses?> You show revenue and earnings tracking in exact proportion to each other. Your conclusion is ass backward from your supporting data. You might want to rethink this one. I know that statement seems weird, but I didn't make it up. Read the report. In 1997/98 they had sales of $2,192,751 and lost $2,732,268. In 1998/99 they had sales of $1,353,868 and lost $1,095,991. Maybe if the sales keep declining, at some point in time they will quit losing money? <One more minor point. Outstanding shares increased from 179,635,655 in 1997/98 to 182,878,257 in 1998/99. No one has a problem with the additional dilution?> This is not the direction you want share count to go. My calculation shows this to be an increase of .001805099221791 which in English is less than two one thousanths, or two tenths of one percent. The statistical significance of this is so far out there as to be truly meaningless. It's the statistical equivalant of tipping my paper boy two cents for 5 weeks of newspaper. I am not a mathematician, but I believe your calculation is off. Any way you want to look at it 3,242,602 additional shares are further dilution. Have fun, Phil