Why the fuss? PNC issue just went away, most profitable division still on board
I believe the temp staffing is where ENG makes its money, and now the revolve #$%$ contest with PNC is solved. I wouldn't count this baby out yet, Bill may just have the last laugh at the end of the day.
in May 2007 this company's stock went from about $4 & change to about $9. in one day. I'm not giving up for quite awhile. I see no reason to think that this co will tank and many to think it will survive, the main reason being that management, despite their mistakes, is trying to get this train wreck back on the rails
Well, last year ENG had to sell 1/3rd of the company to stay afloat. Now they have had to sell off 1/2 of the 2/3rds that was left. I'm not sure anyone should be laughing, however I agree that eventually the company will get small enough to basically hit the reset button and see if they can make a fresh go of it.
In the 2Q report, both the Automation and Engineering Divisions made a profit, all of which was sucked away by corporate expenses. Lets hope they figure out a way to reduce these expenses dramtically now that the company is 1/2 the size. ENG has always been a top heavy company and the blame for that rests soley on executive management.
I hear that the Denver and Chicago offices are starting to pick up steam which is good, I also hear the Gov Division revenues are down (prob to be expected in this political environment). All in all it will be interesting to see what happens going forward. I would still hold if you have, but wouldn't buy just yet.
Brinderson gets $75,000 per employee and ENG gets less than $25,000??? Albeit Brinderson deserves a premium for selling its whole operation, but are ENG's 900 employees (and the business/prospects associated with them) really worth so much less?
sellowstome, you can't only look at an organization based on its employees. If Brinderson has revenue from travel, material, subcontracts, etc then all they have to do is to generate more non-labor related revenue than ENGlobal to increase that $$$/employee. ENG's construction and Gov't group generate a lot more revenue/employee than the engineering simply because they provide a product in addition to the service. Also, from a sales perspective one must look at the quality of the contracts. If Brinderson has a multi-year contract then that carries more value than if ENG has many more contracts of smaller scales. My point is not just those two examples but rather there are many different ways you can skin a cat.
In 2011 and 2012, ENG's engineering and automation segment employees generated over $200M in revenue compared to Brinderson's $187M (in 2011). Were ENG's employees valued less just because of ENG's debt?