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 : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Senior who wrote (21585)	7/2/2005 1:40:52 PM
From: bruwin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78774

Well, it just goes to show you what PR is worth sometimes, especially if it comes from the company itself. They’re not likely to highlight the negative aspects. It’s stated that "on April 30 2005, company had total assets of $101.2 mil." .... "stockholders equity of $72.4 mil". I say "So what !". Maybe it had Total Assets of $101.2 mil., but it also had Total Liabilities of $101.2 mil. In Oct. 2004 it had $107.6 mil. in Total Assets and $74.5 mil. in Shareholders Equity. So both numbers have actually COME DOWN. Instead of focussing on the Balance Sheet, maybe they should have spent some time looking closer at the Income Statement. What the PR department doesn’t focus on is the miniscule Operating Margin of -0.6% in the latest Quarter and only 1.19% in Oct. 2004. A drop of 50% !! Several of their competitors show Op. Margins of between 11% and 37%. It also doesn’t mention the fact that Turnover increased by 17% from $58.5 mil. in Oct. 2004 to $68.5 mil. in Apr. 2005. But the Bottom Line was -$1.1 mil. in 2004 and ANOTHER LOSS of -$1.0 mil. in 2005. So EGR increased Turnover by $10 mil. but could only reduce it’s Bottom Line LOSS by $0.1 mil. ! Personally, IMO, this doesn’t strike me as a company that is, or was, going places. However, from what I read, there were others who thought, and maybe still think, differently. I read that $1.50 may be "the bottom" .... I wonder.