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: Brad who wrote (14253)	4/29/1998 12:12:00 AM
From: Sigmund	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27968

<<<< As for Myriad... Profitability in this business is all a matter <<<< of rigid controls and smarter buying. Myriad got in trouble <<<< because they misappropriated funds. FAMH does smarter buying... <<<< bulk buying of workman's comp, employee benefit programs, health <<<< ins, etc. Of course I know none of the details, but misappropriation of withholding I think sometimes occurs after a business gets in trouble rather than being the initial cause. The reason I bring this up is that there may be some element of business risk associated with taking over such a large operation. Of course the potential is rather large but there may be a period of time before improved management methods bear fruit. But of course as I said to start I have no familiarity with the details of their business. Do we know what condition Myriad is in? Have their employees been paid in a timely manner? Is there payroll or other accounts payable? What is the monthly trend in billings? It doesn't seem like an investment banker was involved so it looks like there is no one to go to if there is a problem with the deal. Without knowing any of the details, it seems like a great deal. But sometimes the devil is in the details. Hopefully the details are as good as the big picture appears to be.

To: Brad who wrote (14253)	4/29/1998 11:34:00 AM
From: Little Engine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27968

The "we already recouped the cash put out for Mort show" argument seems specious... As I understand TV commercial revenue, producers guarantee advertisers a certain rating, then charge them accordingly. If they don't meet that rating, then the producers owe them refunds. And the projected ratings can only be guesswork at this point, given the variables (the fact it will play on cable stations, none of the three biggest markets being signed up, Mort's long absence from television, backlash against Springer, etc.) What Ira has left out is the rest of the sentence, the part after "we lready recouped the money", that says "but we may have to give some of it back." Since the new Mort show hasn't even begun production, I don't see how it could be done any other way.