Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Angie's List Sort Of Posts First Quarter Profit
Angie's List kicks off the first quarter of 2015 reporting a profit of $4.4 million compared to a net loss of $3.8 million a year ago. Its revenues were also up 15% to $83.5 million. Good news? Maybe. Cutting marketing expenses nearly one-third during the first quarter amounted to a savings of $7.2 million. The company also continues its trend of relying more heavily on advertising fees it charges to the service providers it supposedly fairly rates for its consumer members. Those revenues grew 22%, representing $66.2 million, or 80% of the total revenues earned during the first quarter. The company's accounts payable during the first quarter doubled from $5.5 million a year ago to $11.7 million, while its accrued liabilities grew $10 million from $23 million to $33 million. Its reported accounts receivable number was pretty much unchanged over the previous year. Total liabilities are up nearly $20 million. Yeah, it looks like it only showed a profit through bookkeeping gimmicks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Come on. For the first time in the existence of Angie's List, everyone is talking about how they've never made money, and all of a sudden, they make money?
I hope a good analyst looks at their earnings.
Just because liabilities increased and receivables did not does not mean they are cooking the books. When liabilities increase it is generally either because a company has incurred an expense or has borrowed funds. You have to look at all the financial statements. They made money because they cut marketing expenses. The market has yet to believe they can cut marketing to make money and still retain customers or grow the business. Liabilities increase is offset by increase in cash. They merely are paying slower on their payables. That is not a cooking the books issue but a liquidity issue the market has also pointed out to them. You cannot continue to lose money and thus cash unless you have liquidity sources like debt or equity to supply that cash. So it is not cooking the books. It is still the question can they drop marketing expenses and still grow the business profitably and they need profits to improve liquidity.
Revenues from consumer memberships is down, which I think is a first for the company. That's not a good sign.
10:06: How many times did you yourself type/say "cooking the books". Freudian. Class Action Law Suit cooking the books?
Investors must not have been too impressed. The stock's price closed just 5% up after trading in double-digits earlier in the day.
Oh Dear God can we please let this Ponzi scheme die a quick death? Pure and simple, no matter what Zach Adamson says, this is a phony company that could not sustain itself without massive infusions of more taxpayer dollars... you know, the very taxpayer dollars Democrat Councilor Zach Adamson and his equally pro-corporate welfare politicians intended to lavish on Bill "Cake Boy" Oesterle and Angie Hicks.
This is a fake company and it is circling the drain not because of "RFRA" but because Oesterle and Hicks created a questionable business model that never did meet the test of common sense.
But boy, did it make them millionaires!!! All at Indy taxpayer expense. Let's not forget it was Indianapolis crony political attorneys (hello, David Brooks!) and moronic City Councilors who made that happen.
I disagree that the ANGI business model was "questionable." The idea was reasonable at its time & isn't outlandish. However, the market changed: competititors like Yelp who do the same thing are now online for free.
12:04 Your Freudian comment is ridiculous. I am a CPA with extensive experience and can read and analyze financial statements very well. I was refuting Gary's original post and the points he made that point to coooking the books in his opinion. I do not feel his points held water from a CPA perspective nothing more. They may very well be cooking the books - I have no idea. But his points did not necessarily hold water for me. My opinion - AL just has a bad business model and getting worse in a highly changing internet world
LamLawIndy:
I don't think the original business model was questionable. There is a need for a valid consumer reporting agency to have buyers beware of corrupt or unscrupulous service providers. The problem was the orginal business model was changed and in my opinion Angie's List became a racket: Selling membership on the basis of a valid consumer reporting service and at the same time selling advertising to businesses with the caveat that "you don't want a bad consumer report, do you? A bad consumer report can be bad for business if you know what I mean..." "If you buy advertising those bad reports will just go to the back of the list and they just might not affect your overall rating....you wouldn't want your customers to know that you did something less than satisfactory to prior customers, would you?"
I think it evolved into a racket. That is going to be determined in Federal Court as that case is now pending.
I believe they are cooking the books, and I'll tell you how. A lot of us vendors weirdly have had other accounts intermingled with ours in the background of their network. So, if the other guy doesn't pay his bill, it reflects on my account, and vice versa. They don't actually pursue me for the debt, it is just listed there. I think his debt shows as both mine and his. I believe Angie's List is double dipping the accounts receivables and the increases in receivables are faked.
Post a Comment