That's a pretty big "if". There are those, exemplified by jamcracker, who refuse to see REED for what it is (a small-cap growth company) and insist on applying more traditional analysis. If you're just looking at last quarter's financials and EPS, then yes it's not much to look at. But those of us who understand this company will have the last laugh. "only +24% revenue growth", that was a good belly laugh.
The financial graveyard is littered with folks who tried to convince the world that earnings don't matter. You are the guy who said Dr. Pemberton didn't make $ the fist year....really....read history.... (Pemberton only cleared a profit of $50 the first year.). You like to make statements like REED $500m market cap in 3 years. I will stick to my earnings and cash flow as oppose to strictly revenue growth. If without K Reed grew revenue 27% and 28% the previous two q1 - why with K only 24% in q1 2013 is a valid point. I don't sit here and pick on people and call them names. I was looking for $8.2 to high of 8.8m in revenue for q1 2013 with the contribution of K (see April 4 post).