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 (4115)	2/26/1998 12:03:00 AM
From: dennis foster	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27968

Little Engine In the pursuit of convincing other investors that ones own view is the only view,some people portray their posts as fact. When in reality they are based on assumptions and twisted words. In this case you posted that DCTC announced a stock buyback and the price went down. I responded with facts in black and white that the reason was in fact from a dissappointing earnings release. after posting these facts I asked you the question , why do you think the stock price is down? Your response is as follows; "You are saying that (following DCTC's lead) the FAMH buyback may raise the stock price 5 percent? Gee, bar the doors, call the fire department, this puppy's blazing..." You simply avoided the facts, twisted my words, and made presumptions that I felt that there is a correlation between DCTC and FAMH's stock buyback announcments. With this in mind could you answer my question without commenting on FAMH directly or indirectly. Reviewing the FACTS that I presented to you do you feel DCTC's price is currently lower because of; A) The stock buyback announcement which you implied as fact. B) The disappointing earnings release which is fact. Simply A or B Dennis

To: Little Engine who wrote (4115)	2/26/1998 1:40:00 AM
From: JIN CHUN	Respond to of 27968

LE, ha ha. If you want me to pull the reports off of the many companies that either employee lease, or employee lease through their franchise, I will, because unless Media General Financial Services, Hoover's, and the other sources I used in my research are wrong, you're wrong. The net industry average, for a strict employee leasing firm is anywhere between the pathetic nets you mentioned and 5 percent. The range of net margins are explained in many ways by the way the individual scenarios of each company. Many of the companies you cited have higher margins than those you just cited. So what's the story? It seems as if you are picking and choosing those examples to fit into your conspiracy theory. YOU CANNOT APPLY THE MARGINS OF THE COMPANIES YOU JUST CITED I'll post some links again: Message 3503310 I also depend on real world numbers, because I own shares of this company. The particulars as to why I believe the 1.8MM net for Myriad in '97 is accurate: Message 3497877 Also, look at the bottom of their last press release, a solid indication of their intention to be fully reporting. You're grasping for straws! Everytime you post figures for a company as a comparison, it either doesn't apply fully or can easily be explained away, and then you post figures for companies that contradict your earlier figures for other companies. Sound confusing? It is! Jin.

To: Little Engine who wrote (4115)	2/26/1998 4:30:00 AM
From: JIN CHUN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27968

Little Engine, here's the result for one of the companies you cited. TO ALL: This post is long winded, but points out some very important valuations, given by LE himself. First you cite NCES. It was formed in 1996 and gets over 70 percent of it's revenue servicing it's parent company! 3 percent gross! 692K net from 10/96 - 5/97 Selling and administrative costs took up 67 percent of gross Net margin was only 0.1 percent with a NET LOSS IN FISCAL '97 If you go to an off the rack quote server you can't even find a PE listing. You have to read their latest SEC filings instead. NET LOSS OF .02/SHARE and it is trading over $6, with a 52 week high of $10, and a 52 week low of $5 1/8. How is that for a comparison? With the stock buy back, and assuming no growth, 1.8MM is divided nicely by 36MM shares. That's .05 eps from the '97 figures for MYRIAD ALONE, without the rest of FAMH's business, and NCES with a loss of .02 eps is trading at $6? How about STFF? They had a 0.3 Percent loss in '96. With a market capitalization of 658MM, yes that's over 1/2 Billion dollars and 23.5MM shares out, and with their latest 10Q, as you state, they had net revenues of 13.9MM. Averaged out, that gives them a one year net of around 18.53MM. So, are you telling us that the market seems to see fit that this company should have a market capitalization of 35.5 TIMES ONE YEAR NET EARNINGS? Aside from the fact that Myriad had a higher profit margin, and that they did indeed have a net margin equal to or near the INDUSTRY AVERAGE(SOURCE: MEDIA GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES), and that the net revenue from Myriad will not be the complete revenue for FAMH, and that STFF is coming from a loss in '96, if you apply the same multiple to ONLY THE MYRIAD NET IN '97 you get a market capitalization of $63.9MM. It is very important to note that total market capitalization takes into account the total outstanding shares. Even factoring out the buy back of shares, more revenue from FAMH's existing and new operations, then the valuation applied above gives a price per share of $1.59! If you apply the lower net margin for Myriad sales in '97 of around 4 percent and add in the strong contracts for FAMH with 12MM in sales for '98, and no growth, you get: MYRIAD: 1.8MM NET FAMH: .48MM NET TOTAL: 2.28MM NET USING THE ABOVE VALUATION OF 35.5XNET MARKET CAP: 80.94MM W/40MM SHARES: $2.02/SHARE And that is without any of the factors mentioned above! Jin. Backing it up with real world numbers.