you're correct, they reduced some expenses faster than their revenue decrease. they will not be able to continue reducing expenses at that rate, however, revenues will continue to deteriorate at the current rate for the foreseeable future. revenue deterioration will actually probably accelerate in the next year or two as directories become unprofitable and dropped from the lineup. this will continue to happen until the entire print business becomes unprofitable and the company exits that business. with the digital declines the company has recently started experiencing (you'll begin to see revenue decrease at a faster rate as digital ad sales from pre-q12015 become fully amortized), there's not going to be much left of the company. unfortunately, this company also has rapidly deteriorating fcf and ebitda, and they face a dead end on their debt at the end of 2016. hopefully, for this company's sake, there's no meaningful economic downturn in the next 12 months.
keep clamoring to hope at your own risk as you continue to leave your money in a stock that is no more than a high risk bet. your best bet, and likely only bet, is to hope for a bounce in the near future. if you acknowledge you're here on nothing more than a bet, then awesome...good luck. if you think you're here for any sort of actual investment purpose, i'm sorry.
quarter over quarter fcf doesn't matter...you're seeing some normal quarterly variation there. look at year over year...that's the trend that matters.
your math is failing you. there are multiple ways to calculate it, and none of them will show digital growth. the easiest way is simply to use the stats given in the earnings release...they explicitly state that in q2, 34% of their revenue was from digital. with 387m of total revenue, you can easily calculate that 131.6m of revenue came from digital. doing the same exercise for q1, you will see that 33% of their 406m of total revenue came from digital, or 134.0m of digital revenue. so, it decreased.
they haven't been shipped, hence the fact that they haven't recognized revenue. according to gene's comments on the last conference call, they do currently have purchase orders for 57 units and over 52k disposables.
as far as inventory, and more specifically wip, on the balance sheet, i assume you didn't actually look. they currently have 985k of inventory with 191k in wip and 156k in finished goods. of course, they have a material weakness in internal controls pertaining to inventory (not surprising for a company in their current financial position and where they are in the life cycle of their product), so use these numbers at your own risk. i assume this material weakness most likely pertains to them not having an adequate cost accounting system in place to properly value wip and finished goods, and i assume that the combination of the two numbers somewhat accurately approximates the total amount in those two buckets collectively.
you may want to recheck your ebitda and fcf numbers. ebitda was down 9% year over year in the quarter, down 19% year to date. fcf was down 34% year to date. the real kicker was the continued deterioration in digital ad sales ..they were down 22% year over year in the quarter and 25% year to date.
as far as depreciation and amortization decreasing, nobody cares. it doesn't impact ebitda or fcf, and aside from ad sales, those are really the only metrics anybody cares about in this company. but, the reason that depreciation and amortizaton is decreasing is due to the fact that their intangibles are approaching the end of their lives. the way they amortize intangibles, amortization expense decreases over time as the forecasted future cash flows from those intangibles decrease. read that very carefully, because it's very telling. these intangibles primarily consist of directory service agreements and customer relationships. directory service agreements are the contracts that dxm has with telco's to publish phone books for them. in other words, those agreements are the soul of their print advertising business. as of december 31, 2014, the directory services agreements only had 4 years left on their useful lives, indicating that the company believes those agreements will only provide meaningful cash flows to the company through 2018. their client relationships had 2 year useful lives, meaning they believe those relationships will only provde cash flows to the company through the end of 2016. however, if you read their most recent 10-q very carefully, you will see that they very well may end up determining that those intangible assets are impaired by the end of this year, resulting in further write-offs that will continue to erode their balance sheet. an interesting line from their last 10-q where they are discussing potential impairment of their intangibles..."Our current estimates assume revenue will continue to decline into the foreseeable future."
the manner in which you used the information was wrong considering you were trying to disagree with me when i was in fact correct.
your posts are referencing webmd (post 1632) and a gthp press release (post 1705) that doesn't even mention guidelines. it's kind of funny that in post 1705, you actually use an assumption of every 5 years. ;-)
on the other hand, my info is coming from the cdc, american cancer society and the us preventive services task force.
but, let's just say you want to continue to debate what you read on webmd. wedmd is actually referencing recent guidelines published by the american college of physicians (acp). do you know what they actually recommend?
here's a quote from acponline's press release announcing their recommendations in april of this year:
"ACP advises that physicians should start screening average risk women for cervical cancer at age 21 once every three years with cytology tests alone. Physicians may use a combination of cytology and HPV (human papillomavirus) testing once every five years in average risk women age 30 and older who prefer screening less often than every three years. Physicians should stop screening average risk women older than 65 years for cervical cancer who have had three consecutive negative cytology results or two consecutive negative cytology plus HPV test results within 10 years with the most recent test performed within five years."
in other words, their guidelines are exactly the same as those from the cdc, the american cancer society and the us preventive services task force. i've tried to tell you before to be careful with secondary sources.
this is the point in the debate where you usually say something along the lines of "it doesn't matter anyway. i only want to discuss things that will help me make money".
i just found a presentation from turkey moh from late 2014 that says ages 30-65 every 5 years. regardless, you agree that it's not every year.
the current preferred method by the american cancer society is hpv co-test between 30-65 every 5 years. the overall guidance is either 20-29 pap test every 3 years, 30-65 hpv co-test every 5 years or every 3 years with a pap test.
you're assuming that nearly every female in turkey will need a test every year? the turkish moh recommends testing every 5 years for women once they hit age 35, unless something changed in the last 5 years.
sorry, it was "unapprovable letter". this is from the email he sent to you on december first. again, he confirmed to me that he meant not approvable letter instead of unapprovable.
"We believe that the most likely outcome from the FDA will be an Unapprovable Letter,
but that at the same time they will propose a path forward to approval which
will likely be to schedule a panel meeting."
again, there are only 4 types of letters you can get in response to a pma...an approval letter, an approvable letter, a not approvable letter and a denial letter. again, he confirmed he meant not approvable letter. you don't get an ad panel after a not approvable letter. the process is quite rigid, and that's not how it works. i'm kind of surprised you still want to debate this, especially considering that the actual outcome was in fact a not approvable letter, just like gene confirmed that he suspected they would receive.
he said non approvable letter to you (according to the quote you provided), there is no such thing. he confirmed to me that he meant not approvable letter. you say he meant "he meant was not approved but with an ad panel." there is no such thing as not approved with an advisory panel, either. the ONLY type of panel you get after a not approvable letter is " the type of panel in which companies argue in desperation". it's called a dispute resolution panel. an advisory panel is something that you get during the process, not after you get a not approvable response from the fda.
again, we come back to him confirming that he expected a not approvable letter, and he had made similar comments in private multiple times. there are only 2 possible scenarios in that case...he was making comments that he should not have been making since they were never properly disclosed, or he really didn't know what he was talking about at all. let's look at the potential that he didn't know what he was talking about at all. do you want to concede that the ceo of a company that you are invested in has no clue of how the fda process works when that process is the most important issue that will most significantly impact the stock price? do you think it's possible that he really has no clue how the fda process works considering his background prior to gthp and his experience while at gthp? or, do you think it's more likely that he actually knew exactly what he was talking about and expected a not approvable letter all along, especially considering that's exactly what happened?
it had been mentioned at a conference, the audio portion of which was only public (and only if you dug around for it) for a short period. if you want to get into the finer details of reg fd, i will, but that presentation does not satisfy the requirements.
as far as what he said exactly, you may recall that i also had a conversation with him where he did confirm that he expected a not approvable letter. he never mentioned conditional approval. if i recall, you posted quotes from him that also showed he mentioned a not approvable letter with no mention of conditional approval. we can hash all of that out again, if you want to.
i wouldn't say he has been an abysmal failure, but i do have concerns about him. for starters, it's still quite fresh on my mind how he made statements 6 months or so ago in private communications that he believed they would receive a not approvable, and then he tried to play it off to others that he didn't really understand what a not approvable letter was and had misspoken only to end up actually receiving a not approvable letter. combine that with private comments he has made regarding pending financing arrangements and sales deals, and he has definitely crossed quite a few ethical lines with private communications that most certainly equate to reg fd violations. while i am sure that some investors love his willingness to communicate openly in private, these sorts of communications put all investors at risk. it is these sorts of missteps that led me to exit a fairly sizable position a while back, and i have yet to reenter due to a loss of confidence in him. as the price continues to trickle lower, i may reenter as a bet on the product, but even if i do, it certainly won't be a bet on management.
"Hey, the contracts are not revenue until shipped............... And paid for. "
it's revenue when the units are shipped. payment doesn't have to be made before revenue is recognized.
dex media cant even properly seo dex media. i dont know how any other business would trust in their seo abilities given that simple fact.
the market cap requirement is more likely to get them delisted than the $1 bid price requuirement. their best hope for resolving the market cap failure is to convert the sr sub notes to equity.