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.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Master who wrote (7416)	2/17/1998 5:31:00 PM
From: Emec	Respond to of 10368

Did you mention that they have preliminary marginabilty approval from the federal reserve?

To: Joe Master who wrote (7416)	2/17/1998 5:31:00 PM
From: Mackie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

THE BOTTOM LINE question: What do you say to the investor that purchased the stock last year...pick any price...then also invested in warrants for the long-term,,,the stock raises like wild-fire...the "Company" not the street, not the MM, the company decided to get the money in as fast as you can...make the shareholder pay $5 more to the company? And today...the shareholder is in the negative range of his investment...in a market that is booming... This company has lots of cash and if they ready thought that their stock was SOO UNDERVALUED...guess what...BUY IT! Hell, no...that would be a negative charged to the balance sheet! Right....but you shareholders....please pass the $5 ...Thank You! I still believe that before the audit is complete...there will be a new owner...which can see the undervalue...and bring it to light. Not Mr. Bingo...in a industry were precision like numbers and cards have to be sharp and clear....They should be accountable for their PR. I for one would like to thank T. Allen for the questions presented at the conference call and would say...that they were not answered as the street wanted!

To: Joe Master who wrote (7416)	2/17/1998 9:37:00 PM
From: Ed Pettee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

JOE__ Further to the numbers from my notes, and any one else if they have something different; 1997--Revenues $12.5 million==250% over 1996 Net Income $ 3.7 million 4thQtr. not finished--estimates revenues between $2.7-$3.0 million Net Income about $950,000 Revenues still 70% VGM's 30% Bingo Earnings to be released in mid to late March. Estimates will be less than Kreasge's estimate of .44. A litiny of reasons for the short fall: smaller than usual seasonal bump (remember on 11/13 we were told the short fall in VGM in the 3rd Qtr.was due to not recognizing the seasonal factor, but we were told that the 4th and 1st quarters were seasonally stronger.) higher exspenses, closed Bingo halls, higher labor costs, legal and lobbying efforts, and higher than expected consulting costs. 1998--Estimate of $20.0 million Revenues--Net $2.5 to 3.0 million Earnings per share .25-35 . This is based on only the announced 4 Bingo halls and straight lined for the year. He did state that with further expansion he could see .40 per share. Then went on to remark later in answer to a question on 98 that this would show year 97 basically flat to 98. The reason for the flat years he gave was the fact that we have many more shares and we now have to pay taxes which was not so in all of 97. He confirmed that there would be no expansion in VGM's until we know the results of the political issues. Mr. Mims commented that if we lost in S.C. revenues would continue until at least the middle of 99. An interesting point not discussed is that if we prevail in S.C. which is what Mims is predicting, I had been told that we then would add to our VGMs to reach a 1000 number and this of course is not added into any prediction of 98 numbers. Feel free to correct or add any thing any one else has.