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: Duncan who wrote (2361)	4/10/1998 4:37:00 PM
From: Roger Cossaboom	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2841

ECO mgt. could reduce investment cash flow and/or financing cash flow to reach the point where positive operating c.f. exceeds the "drain" of neg. inv. c.f. plus fin. c.f.(no new). But would you be happy with a resulting 3%(say) or -5%(say) eps growth to go w/positive operating cash flow?????

To: Duncan who wrote (2361)	4/11/1998 2:49:00 PM
From: Peter H. Mack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2841

Duncan... Maybe you can help explain cash flow to me.(us) As I see it, Cash flow represents the changes in cash flow from previous year. Example is the increased amount of cash needed to fund receivables was listed in the 10k as $15,932. Which would seem to me reasonable to expect if the receivables expanded heavily due to the growth of revenue. However.... Last years receivables on the balance sheet were $21,098 and this years $50,349. The expansion of receivables was the difference $29,251... What I don't understand is the cash flow section reports $15,932 vs $29,349???? The rapid expansion by acquisition has certainly produced negative cash flow, but if acquisition activities slowed down so would the increases in negative cash flow. (the receivables now stand at 25% of annual sales.) (90 day sales outstanding) This is why DBCO was (IMHO) such a scary thing. It seems to me that any scheme to force buy back with DBCO was not practical because of their financial circumstances. Going into DBCO deal was highly risky, and it became evident that the ongoing costs of operations may have been nearly impossible. (IMHO) Since ECO spent a long time reviewing this, I am guessing that information became increasingly worse over time to the point that ECO simply had to disconnect. So most of $5 mil is jeopardy. The EIF thing looks like it has negative aspects in as much as the 10k says that "The company's investment in EIFH exceeds the net assets of EIFH by approximately $15 million." We have been given assurances that this will work out, but what is our confidence now?? regards pete