Onesource vs D&B
Since puppman and derbenski refuse to acknowledge the onesource information, I thought I'd shed a little light on the the use of these 2 resources and why onesource trumps D&B in this case.
I am a research associate for a $550 million global executive search firm and we rely heavily on onesource for finding information on PRIVATE companies. The whole research team uses it as do partners, senior partners, you name it. Hoovers/D&B/Mantra (whatever you want to call it) is great for the publics and basic contact info (we also use it when seeking out info from publics), but is nowhere near as accurate and updated as onesource for private companies. I have seen wrong and outdated numbers so many times through that D&B that we rarely use it when we're trying to find out who's who in small private companies or what their revenues are (but like i said they do have solid contact info usually).
Our firm uses onesource as its go to resource for finding information on these smaller companies and it is our business to find out who people are and what their doing (we are headhunters when it comes down to it), so if onesource was wrong (and it is continually accurate), we would be in big trouble. The fact is, I have 100% faith in the $3.7 million sales number on onesource. I do not know and it does not list how much of that is profit so you can speculate away at that, but I stand by, and I can even say my firm would stand by, the $3.7 million number in sales for their 2006 year.
So I think it is really ridiculous that puppman and derbenski keep posting these D&B numbers as fact, when they clearly are not. There is no timeframe on when those D&B numbers were entered. Onesource has March 2007 as the last update. I guess when you have an agenda to tank this stock for whatever reason (not that it needs help tanking), you will use whatever means necessary, because if they were honest about "helping us shareholders" then they would use the onesource numbers.
AI
