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: art who wrote (2281)	1/30/1998 10:13:00 AM
From: lowell	Respond to of 27968

Art: I absolutely agree with you! FAMH could eventually become a SOSS, or a ASI, or a CSTF. I also do not doubt that FAMH could potentially command a lot higher stock price. Lets face it, this is a hot industry, and lots of people are making money. However, the numbers just don't add up. My calculations are based on numbers given by Ira himself (there are no guesses, there are no assumptions, there are only simple calculations). Maybe Ira mis-spoke, but he is claiming 9-5 = 8. According to Ira's figures, SG&A is calculated to be only $56,000 per office. Possible?: Yes. Probable?: No. Regards, Lowell

To: art who wrote (2281)	1/30/1998 11:57:00 AM
From: Little Engine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27968

Art, Growth is good, yes, LOL. Putting out estimates that state your gross profits are the same as your net profits is not. I am sure you noticed that, although similar businesses, SOSS is operating at margins under five percent net profit, while FAMH is claiming 30 percent. Does that sound logical? You believe that? Cheap stocks often do pretty high volume, yes. Another good stock to compare numbers to would be HIR. Although they do more permanent placement work than FAMH, and (presumably) would have higher margins, their net margins are MUCH lower than what FAMH is claiming. Doesn't make sense to me. How could this be? Keep doing the numbers, L.E. P.S. Scott, like you, I can't see the benefit that could come from slamming this stock... it's not like there is a bunch of short room here (and I thought shorting it was illegal, anyway... or is that just for market makers?) To everyone: please remember one thing -- my so-called "slamming" of their numbers has been on target in the past. After I posted my extensive analysis of their claim (published in a press release Nov. 24!) that FAMH made .06 in the third quarter, they backed off. The "new" numbers are that they made .03 in the third quarter, according to the conference call.(Some people will attempt, no doubt, to blame an increased number of shares for this adjustment. Actually, that can't be right. Whether the earnings for the 3rd Q were figured a week after it ended, or months after, they should know, don't you think, how many shares they had outstanding at the END of the 3rd quarter. If they didn't know, I'd really worry.) So, they've already restated their numbers at least once. Look for it to happen again. You know, forgive me, but I HATE to see people ripped off by companies hyping earnings they can't possibly have. I actually invested in FAMH, in part, because I believed the .06 earnings, figuring they wouldn't be so bold as to release false numbers. That's my motivation. I think it is at least slightly more honorable than those out to make a profit on stock they bought in the .30's. I DO see, however, plenty of benefits from hyping it, from pumping it up, and desperate attempts to discredit the people who analyze it and find out that the numbers just don't match. People have a lot of money at stake. I loved Fitz's post! About time! I wish I had "loyalists" on the board, and access to insiders as well. Ah, someday. I expect FAMH to come out with an almost-believable explanation of their numbers pretty soon to control the damage. If anyone has the stones to ask how gross and net profits can be the same, that is. Back to my full-time job now...