Golden Enterprises Inc. (GLDC)

[lukematt]

I like discussing with giff.

>
> I guess I was thinking if you make re-align, it's for...
> - cost cutting
> - improve revenues
>

Exactly! (and it's the point that I wanted to discuss with you today even before I saw your new message)

I'm familiar with Golden's previous financial statements. Whenever they sold vehicles, they always showed a GAIN.

Thus, if they are re-aligning routes and (from the most recent 10K) "increasing distribution through independent operators and distributors", I would assume that they will be selling vehicles for a GAIN.

Previously, (I assume) they sold vehicles that were beyond use to the company (i.e. old, too many miles). For a GAIN. If Golden is now selling vehicles because routes are re-aligning, (I assume) they will sell vehicles that are in better condition. For a better GAIN.

Less vehicles = less gasoline, insurance, payroll, maintenance, etc. expenses. Thus, REDUCED COSTS to the balance sheets.

How in the world can Golden possibly claim a one-time charge for re-aligning routes?

I have only two (sarcastic) thoughts:

1. Maybe distributors work like "hypermarkets". If a company wants its products to be sold in a hypermarket (sorry, I don't know the big hypermarket chains in the U.S.), the company must pay a fee to the hypermarket to obtain shelf space. Maybe that's Golden's one-time charge for re-aligning the eastern routes--Golden must pay the distributors to sell Golden's products (Ah, don't you just love the Mafia version of capitalism? )

2. Severance pay for laid-off Golden drivers. For the sake of discussion, let's say that $0.06 of the $0.07 cost against earnings is for route re-alignment (again, Golden didn't tell us how the $0.07 is divided).

$0.06 X 11.78 million shares = $706,800

Of course, we have no idea how many drivers got laid off, if any. If two drivers got laid off, they are very expensive drivers.


As usual, though, we must wait for the 10-Q in the hopes of some explanation.