They are a lot better positioned today than they were several years ago. The current industry-wide engineering boost is in an uptick at the moment so hopefully ENG will gain some ground before it fizzles out. I plan to focus my attention on its ability to manage its overhead costs. If they start showing a reduction, we should hopefully see some progress IMO. as for this gov't contract, it appears to be nothing more than a marketing campaign. I am sure they received the award, but I doubt this is growth vs. maintaining the backlog.
It all depends on the type of revenue. I know that in 2011 and 2012 procurement was much more active than in late 2012 and 2013. Remember, they had a huge cash crunch in 2012 so their ability to procure began to decline because they couldn't pay their bills. If Brinderson was operating similarly to ENG and didn't have cash flow issues, then the revenue for compressors, motors, equipment, etc should have maintained whereas ENG would have been limited in their ability to do so. Employees are not valued based on debt, nor should they be in terms of revenue in my opinion. It can be used as a rule of thumb, but is a poor tool to use when comparing to competition simply because there are too many variables.
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.
Half is a relative term. You chose half as a function of employees. Half could also mean half the revenue, half the profit, etc.
As a previous employee, I think there is actually value in these segments. Although I share similar bitterness as many others, from a realistic perspective I believe that it is the bank's objective to get their debt repaid which will cost shareholders segment synergy value. I think there is no "corner" to turn and that it will be a gradual decline until someone swoops in and makes the purchase of the overall organization. I have heard that Coskey is looking to get out (he has done that once before already) so why would he care and be committed to rebounding this. My guess is that like PNC/Regions bank, he is looking to get out.
As far as $1.00 is concerned, I think its possible, but not probable. This recent sale is cutting the company size (in terms of revenue and employee count) substantially not to mention the fact that ENG probably still will carry any legacy liabilities. Looks like this tough road is not going to get any easier until the company is sold to a better management team.
Bitterness comes when honest working employees give up on reckless management and when these employees depart from the company, they are hit with lawsuit threats, cease and desist letters, and/or even full blown lawsuits. The sad thing is that when you threaten ex employees leaving the company you give them a common desire to see a business like ENG go under. The sad part is that its to the detriment of the existing employees who in fact have done nothing wrong.
Remember gebenhoen, these ex employees once supported ENG. Something caused these ex employees to move on and the only thing that has changed in the past several years has been management and its decisions...