RE:RE:Q1 FINS Review (3.25 / 5)
Possibleidiot01 wrote: Three quick comments.
"72% of those $10.7M worth of receivables are due from two customers and they do not provide any aging."
Yes, it would be nice to know if these are government or private company contracts. Governments may be slow but I've heard they eventually pay.
'During the company's annual meeting in late June a share consolidation is being proposed. I think it is reasonable to consider it at this time, but I find it odd that the range of the reverse split is so wide, a potential 2:1 to 7:1 ratio is quite the gap, and I think leadership should have narrowed this down to give an idea of what shareholders are actually voting for."
This is by my memory ,at least the third time , they've proposed a reverse split in this range. It passed the other times because it's a reasonable idea as you say.
"The rationale within the MD&A and press release I will call lackluster at best as they cite the large erosion in margin rate due to product and service revenue mix. The problem with that is their mix didn't change that significantly with product revenue going from 70 to 75% from last year, so that alone wouldn't impact their margin rate by this much, and the company disappointingly does not disclose margin rates by segment."
You can break products into batteries and other assorted higher tech products . I'll take a guess , maybe we're shipping a lot of batteries that have lower margins?
Appreciated the review, keep up the good work
Joe Mackay said in an interview a few years ago that they target gross margins between 47%- 52% with fluctuations from quarter to quarter. Margins on batteries are lower than 45% so a quarter heavy on battery orders will have lower margins.