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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (12366)	12/11/2001 7:05:15 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

The insurance made up for lost revenues, net of normal expenses. But check the .35 EPS the quarter before that and the .30 EPS the quarter before that, with no special payments of any kind. So a business with fairly fixed expenses - offices, staff, communications and serving clients - will be unprofitable if they don't make their revenue targets. But MAXF was on track to MAKE their targets before September 11. I doubt Kemper would have paid out $4.5m just on MAXF's wishful thinking. The "loss" only figures in with an arbitrary 15% revenue cut and no compensation. You also didn't account for depreciation of almost $900K - with microcaps I always focus on real cash flow. MAXF has only had one unprofitable quarter in 2000-2001 and two quarters since 1999. Your comment implies they wouldn't make money without a one-time event. The filings would argue otherwise. Do you see any reason why they should not be profitable for the foreseeable future?