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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : American Eco (ECGOF, ECX on Toronto exchange) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce Rogers who wrote (2090)	3/7/1998 1:33:00 PM
From: marq	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2841

Bruce, Well said. I tried to look at ECO as if i just came onto this company this week. I would find it undervalued (hey, it beat Zack's earning estimate); i would probably buy some and go on with my business. Perhaps here, our wishful thinking has found a forum, and we encouraged each other to believe what we wanted to come true. We wanted that $1.20. We blinded ourselves to the obvious, that the stock was decreasing before earnings, which is an unusual for a company that is gaining momentum. We even voted, good democrats we, and believed that that would determine the outcome. Then $1.08, the stumble at the cc.... But it's a good company making a lot of money. Buy and hold this one. Other stocks are better for speculation. All the 'updates after conversations with IR', all the 'tidbits from bumping into Mike at some convention', all the 'wishful musing', i am going to have to forego. I get too sucked in. Fundamentals matter. News matters. Buy low, sell high. Keep it simple. Occam's Razor: the most obvious is usually it. Thanks for letting me babble and get this off my chest. Rough week; i got caught up in the drama. From now on, i'm sticking to facts. Cheers, m

To: Bruce Rogers who wrote (2090)	3/7/1998 5:03:00 PM
From: Eric O.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2841

<<I believe another reason given for missing the quarter was related to the number of shares outstanding? Or was it taxes? Whichever, there was no change in the reporting rules in the last three months--are we really expected to believe that this came as a surprise to them and they just discovered it in the last week?>> I had heard that some Canadian tax laws were changed in Dec. 97 and made retroactive. Has anyone else heard this? Any one know anything about Canadian tax law and if this was the case? Eric

To: Bruce Rogers who wrote (2090)	3/7/1998 10:53:00 PM
From: michael meyers	Respond to of 2841

Bruce, some responses... >In fact, the reasons were babbled and almost incomprehensible. I agree that they were not dynamic in their responses, yet the responses seemed comprehensible. >"Mobilization of contracts" was one reason given. Now WHAT does that mean--contracts which they didn't get? I'm guessing that they use "completed contract accounting" to recognize revenue on large construction contracts [I believe this is common]. Anyway, with this type of contract, one can only recognize revenue as work is done on the contract. Thus failure to get going, "mobilize", would delay the recognition of revenue. >After all, it's been over three months ago that they knew that these contracts weren't "mobilized" in the 4th quarter. Even if ECGOF had started the contracts, C&L may have required them to hold back some revenue, i.e. only recognize a proportion of the revenue accrued by the completed contract accounting. As I said before I think C&L may have thrown them for a loop. Of course, this could not be said on the conference call, they couldn't cast any doubt on their auditors. >WHY weren't they mobilized--that may be important info also, but of course was not provided. Maybe delays in signing? Maybe shortage of workers? Who knows? >are we really expected to believe that this came as a surprise to them and they just discovered it in the last week? Agreed, this had to have been known before --- the only surprise could have been how C&L ruled, and they could have been debating it for weeks. >No post which I read even came close to mentioning/accusing a conspiracy, One has to believe with a C&L audit, which I'm sure was through since this is their first C&L audit, there is no conspiracy. >I am long on this stock, but that doesn't mean that management can't be criticized. I agree. However, if you really don't believe in the management then you should indeed sell your stock poste haste. Regards, Michael