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.

Non-Tech : GameTech Int'l. GMTC < SATELLITE Bingo and more > -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sigmass who wrote (300)	6/23/1998 5:44:00 PM
From: tgs59	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 400

Sigmass, I am afraid you made several errors in your analysis. Comparative six month net income was down, but only because of the one time write-off associated with the Native American satellite game project. Quarter to quarter net income reflects an increase in net income. Revenue increased $2.4 million or 43.2% for the six month comparative period. Units installed increased 117%, thus revenue per unit was lower; however, this is due to the tremendous increase in handheld placements. Handset revenues will be less than fixed unit revenues. A simple read of the 10Q would have answered your question, but then you know that quite well. Revenues are growing, installed units are increasing and so is the all important net income. I guess you should stick with innuendo, because you will fall flat on your face when you cross over to real facts!!! tgs59

To: sigmass who wrote (300)	6/23/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: Shaquapa	Respond to of 400

I was about to enlighten you on your incorrect reading of the financials (revenue, profit and installed units), but I see tgs59 did that already. Revenues are up! A more careful reading would have indicated that you were incorrect. I presume 'nuff said about that. You continue your innuendo, misdirection, and inaccuracies. The bottom line is that THERE IS A BOTTOM LINE and it is GOOD! That is the one irrefutable fact. You can assault and slight GMTC (or me) all you care but the fact remains that GMTC is profitable. Now as to your (presumed) ignorant statement of facts regarding the lawsuit... Have you even read the suit? The prospectus? The financials? All are pretty easily obtainable. I have them. I am comfortable with the risk associated with them. Others can make their own decision. I also called the GMTC counsel and asked him about any pending criminal action. He was flabbergasted at even the suggestion and asked where I heard such an absurd rumor. THERE ARE NO CRIMINAL CHARGES It's just another b/s unfounded attempt to slam GMTC. My pearls of wisdom to those that purchased (of which I was one) are these: Evaluate why you bought the company. If those fundamentals are still there, or if you think that the value is good, hold or buy more. Other than that - sell. That's pretty much the decision every investor makes. There's nothing special about GMTC. It is irrelevant to your decision to buy, sell or hold that which has happened in the past. You are making a decision based on what you think the future holds. Lastly I'm growing tired of your veiled threats. It's a tactic for those who can't adequately defend their position by logical means. BTW - the CAPS key is the one on the left side of your keyboard.<g> Trying to follow your thought process is already difficult enough.

To: sigmass who wrote (300)	6/24/1998 8:01:00 AM
From: sigmass	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 400

TO TGS AND SHAQ: Your statement that My analysis is incorrrect is an out right lie. I said that comparative 6 mos net income was down and it was. SEE THE 10 Q. What is all the extraneous B.S you cited got to do with my statement????? I said the the installed unit base was up in the second quarter by 103% and that the average revenue per unit of installed units was down 33%. SEE THE 10 Q. If I'm incorrect it's only because GMTC is publishing false information. In this case I do not believe they are. Therefore your statement of my analysis being incorrect is patently untrue. Since you know this all to well, it is obvious you lied. You purposely keep trying to cover negatives by citing positive facts that have no relation to the negative factor. That kind of thing has a name. In your infinite wisdom what would you call it????? I purposely saved the following for your analysis so you could give another irrelevent response to your followers. DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE - 2nd qtr comparison-- 98 vs 97 DOWN ALMOST 30 % --.08 vs .11 WHY DONT YOU TELL EVERYONE THAT THIS FIGURE IS USUSALLY THE ONE THAT TELLS WHERE A COMPANY IS REALLY AT and that it is a major factor in establishing market price and adjusting P/E ratios. You cannot claim to be ignorant of this and the many things that you so astutely and purposely ignore. Again I ask you ( and SHAQ) what do you call that????? Next posting will address the subject of what causes a drop in per unit revenues when when units installed jumps markedly but is not accompanied by a pro rata increase in per unit revenue which was markedly DOWN-- DOWN (33) %as I said before and which you said was incorrect. I mention this point because I feel certain that you are covering up on this subject like you do on so many. SHAQ you get more and more ridiculous. Go read the dictionary or get help from some one other than tgs.