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 : FAMH - FIRAMADA Staffing Services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Engine who wrote (1436)	1/15/1998 9:38:00 PM
From: Lurker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27968

<<Where did these permanent placements come from, I asked Jennifer? She said they came from temps who had worked somewhere a long time and then were permanently placed. So, the perm placements could NOT be "pure profit," since these people were also paid salaries by FAMH for at least part of the quarter. So we cannot count them as 100 percent profit. They cost money to begin with.>> Why is placement "pure profit?" ------------------------------- Let's say Myraid places a temp nurse who earns $12/hr. Let's say they get $24/hr for the nurse. This is actually a low figure. Here in Nebraska, my company gets at least $85/hr and the nurse gets $24/hr. (I am not the employer, just another employee.) This nurse earns 12x40=480/week. Now, after a few months on the job, the employer tells Myraid, "Nurse Jane is great. I want to hire her permanently." The employer pays a fee which was listed in the contract. This fee is to compensate for the money Myraid will not earn due to nurse Jane no longer working for them. Both nurse Jane and the employer have signed a contract saything that she won't work for the employer for 6 months after leaving Myraid unless this fee is paid. This fee is typically 3-6 months of nurse Jane's pay: 13x480=6240 26x480=12480 So, Myraid gets $6240-$12480 from the employer. The only cost to Myraid is probably about $50 to transfer her employment records to the employer's manpower department.

To: Little Engine who wrote (1436)	1/16/1998 7:01:00 AM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27968

Excellent post. You may have been too conservative. The return on equity is high because of the minimal equity, the rents are very high and I question the 30% margin. I personally question managements decision to lease expensive office space when it is not necessary to their business core. This money can be better used elsewhere. As I recall, and please correct me if I am wrong, did the company not project revenues of over $10,000,000 out of the Miami office alone for 1998 in one of their releases? This was at a time the office was planned to open in November. This could be their most productive office, they have numbers published as to excellent projections, yet they have yet to lease property. They should complete one project before going onto another. Have they hired someone to run that office and train personnel? The Myriad transaction appears to be falling within the industry guidelines of 3-7% and could be an excellent move if they vertically integrate into temp staffing immediately and use the resources that exist.

To: Little Engine who wrote (1436)	1/16/1998 8:41:00 AM
From: JIN CHUN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27968

Little Engine, where exactly are you getting the 3Q numbers from? Was it from a post? If my memory is correct( it may not be ), but I think I remember someone saying that Ira had said something to the effect that the 3Q numbers had to be recalculated. Assuming that their release on the first half of 97 was correct of .06 eps, on the original 19 mil share count, then the first half of 97 brought in around 1.14 mil. Not knowing the exact figures, its hard to tell, but say their revenues are evenly divided (8.5 mil is what Ira said in that screwed up conference call). 1.14 mil income on 4.25 mil gives a margin of around 27%. By the way, their August 28 release did project the Miami office to be open by Nov.1. At the same time, their release on Sept.10 said they hoped to get their financing division up by the first of the year, and it had been started the same month (per release dated 11/24). I agree that the numbers for the 3rd quarter, as you state them seem strange. I'm just not sure about the source of those figures, since it was not in any of their releases( although 4Q projections might have been exagerated, they are, after all, just projections ). Waiting for the 10-k. Jin.

To: Little Engine who wrote (1436)	1/16/1998 11:33:00 AM
From: John Fairbanks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27968

Hi Engine! I loved the book as a kid by the way! ;-) The numbers for the 3rd quarter were suposedly so good because of a very good quarter for the payroll financing division. I'm not sure what that all involves but I noticed it wasn't in your analysis. I've given up on figuring out just how the numbers fall. What makes me confortable is that they could basically come out only making .02/shr for the entire year and still justify today's stock price. I have a modest position that I will increase when/if things pan out the way I hope.