namely if STI did have Telemedcare from 1/7/10 ? 31/12/10, (6...

namely if STI did have Telemedcare from 1/7/10 ? 31/12/10, (6 months), it would have produced revenues of about $1.6 mil and a loss of about $1.7 mil", being a full 6 month period which it has now been until 6/2011 : This together with further sales, suggests it more likely broke even or close to

I don't know how I could have made myself any clearer..

$1.6m revenue and $1.7m loss, means expenses were, at an absolute minimum, $3.3m. $1.6m (revenue) minus $3.3m (expenses) = $1.7m (loss).

Put another way, if the statement said revenues of $1.6m and profit of $0.5m, it would be crystal clear that profit is the net figure revenue minus expenses. Loss is the opposite of profit, I don't see why it would/should be interpreted any other way. It's almost inconceivable that it's close to break even based on these figures, and I would argue if it was, the sale price would be much higher, and the decision to sell would be highly suspect.

Yes, I agree it's a prudent move to sell and focus operations, no argument there. However it's absolutely clear Telemedcare is a drain on cash, hence the need to cut it loose. If it went from $1.7m loss to near break even (or profitable even), don't you think the company would keep it for much needed cash flows?


Survival and success simply depends on shareholders and then the controlling market place which thus far has refused to acknowledge it?s potential ?products? and overall ?team?, slam dunked the share price preventing it from capital raising sufficiently to make it work.

It's poor management decisions that led to the current market sentiment, you have to acknowledge the good with the bad. Many were complaining about managements habit of new acquisitions at the time, and it has quite predictably led to the current situation.


Perhaps this will now finally come with the change in strategy and focus, as STI should then be able to demonstrate growing cash flows to support it?s development and therefore it?s potential for significant profit in the medium to long term.

Success depends on stemming the cash burn, cash flows mean zip unless the company breaks even (equilibrium) or better. It's too late to be crying foul about shareholders, the damage has been done. It's about time management seem to acknowledge cash flow (positive) is critical. Problem is one has to question if this is more a case of their hand being forced, than sound management.

Current situation is a mixed blessing of sorts. If the company was able to easily raise capital at this time, it would probably be making more acquisitions, maybe adding some more property to their portfolio etc.