CRY could pretend to set up a virtual car painting center. This cost center would have no employees, no income and no expenses. Therefore, by definition, it would generate no “net income”.
The two tissue cost centers (cardiac and vascular) generated approximately $53 million in revenue during CY2012. It appears to me that this combined tissue cost center generated no “net income” in CY2012. If I’m wrong about this, then extract relevant tissue numbers from CRY’s CY2012 financial statements and PROVE your case. At best, I suspect the "net income" number will be quite small. I don't think you can prove your case though. I don't think CRY wants it talked about either, because it shows how ineffective management is and has been. It would likely show that about 40% of the company, measured by revenue, doesn't generate any "net income". Worse, this tissue cost center could, in the future, have a repeat liability tail similar to Lykins in 2001.
So which is better, from a CRY shareholder's perspective? Having no employees generating no “net income”, or having say 200 employees generating no “net income”. Granted it gives some people a job, but that doesn’t help shareholders.
From a CRY shareholder perspective, doesn’t “no net income” from tissue equates to “no net income” from imaginary car painting.
I repeat, if the tissue cost center generates positive “net income” for CY2012, then extract relevant numbers from the financial statements and PROVE your case.
Buckeye, you have an accounting background. Call DAL. Ask him to hit the magic “net income” button on CRY’s SAP accounting system. For CY2012, have DAL give you both the “net income” number for cardiac tissue and the “net income” number for vascular tissue. Then let us know what he told you.