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.

Technology Stocks : ACTM $100 Million Cable Modem Contract with MOT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jeffbas who wrote (566)	3/5/1998 6:02:00 PM
From: jtechkid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1250

mot pre announces -things don't look to good significant miss eps numbers

To: jeffbas who wrote (566)	3/5/1998 7:50:00 PM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1250

Lets keep a balanced view under trying circumstances. I agree management has shown themselves to be incompetent in a number of critical skill areas. But don't fall into the psychological trap of slanting factual information. You wrote:Another way of looking at it is whether this company is a better company than when it came public a while ago (1995?) at $12. It has more plant and equipment, a similar customer base, a probably weaker balance sheet, legal problems, a mgmt whose inadequacies are now known, a higher sales breakeven level, a regional strategy which they are trying to fix but is now known to be inferior, etc. I think it is roughly even with when they went public. I checked the revenues for 1995-1997. In 95 they had $116M on 8.7M shares, in 96 they had $226M on 8.8M shares and in 97 they will report about $267M on 9.1M shares. Clearly this is much bigger enterprise with more customer orders and more productive capability than when they went public. I don't think its fair to compare unfavorably against the IPO price. I wouldn't own the stock at the valuation then. OTOH, I agree the management has shown some serious deficiencies, and the company has screwed up their financial reports. From my reading of the recent 10Q, the company seems to be reporting a $37M revolving credit facility as "Long Term Debt" on the balance sheet. If there is an accountant on the thread, I'd like to hear an opinion on that. Here are the relevant portions of the 10Q: LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY CURRENT LIABILITIES: Current portion of long-term debt............... 379 38 Accounts payable................................ 34,303 26,154 Accrued expenses................................ 3,824 5,216 -------- -------- Total current liabilities.................... 38,506 31,408 -------- -------- LONG-TERM DEBT--Less current portion.............. 37,616 29,055 -------- -------- On a consolidated basis, the Company had secured revolving credit facilities of $50.0 million at September 30, 1997, of which $36.8 million was utilized and $7.5 million was available for use. In addition, at September 30, 1997 -9- <PAGE> the Company's equipment lease line of $20.0 million had $10.3 million available for use and $9.7 million utilized for outstanding commitments. The Company's need for, cost of and access to funds are dependent in the long- term on future operating results as well as conditions external to the Company. The Company believes that its current sources of and access to capital are adequate to support operations for the next twelve months. My comments: I'm having a difficult time reconciling the statements made in the 10Q with the balance sheet info. It looks to me like the company has 36.8M + 9.7M = 46.5M in debt but only shows $37.6M on the balance sheet. Anyone have an explanation ? Paul