SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The Learning Company (TLC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Thomas C. Donald who wrote (5184)7/24/1998 4:39:00 PM
From: paul richards  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6318
 
tell that to the investors who bought 2 years ago with the same hype
what's different? Nothing just more shares and more current liabilities. here's what's wrong:

1) O/S in Q4 goes to 110M. let's see if TLC will really use this number.

2) proforma comparisions were lacking:
if rev was $129 vs, mindscape proforma of $108

you have to also add in Cyberpatrol, Learning, Skills, CW, TEC, which est approx $10-12M
pf magic was $2.0M
Sofsource ?
this adds to a proforma comparision of $120+\- 1M
leaving organic growth of 10%
so it's evident that TLC needs to acquire to grow to maintain the P/E it wants. It also means there will always be write offs and no profits.

3) return reserves $71 m ????? another troubling sign.

4) listened to telcon, and it appears TLC hasn't anything special
happening, that's enough to fire up revenues anymore than anyother competitor. So,TLC will grow at only
industry growth rates and that's the 10%.

5) in 60 days most of the options will up for mgmt to exercise, always a negative, but as previously warned, the stock market is strictly for insiders who enrich themselves. what else is new ?

BTW: can you assure investors that since SKEY did have acctg questions raised 2 years, at the same time CUC was fiddling with the books on similar software acquisition related write offs and capitalization of expenses etc, that TLC today has no problems? that the SEC has not asked for information?