Replies to post #18635 on ScripsAmerica Inc. (SCRCQ)

[hondaboost]

Wow! $2.7 Million revenues in June (1 month)! So, the whole year revenues would be $30 Million ? !

[coolerheadsprevail]

TYSONS CORNER, VA, Jul 07, 2014 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- ScripsAmerica, Inc. (OTCBB: SCRC) today announced that the Company's managed specialty pharmacy reported $2,706,709 in prescription approved orders during the month of June.
'Main Avenue Pharmacy,' which specializes in prescription topical pain creams, recorded an increase of 69% in approved orders from May to June, topping the 67% revenue growth during the previous month. Since ScripsAmerica entered an agreement to manage Main Avenue Pharmacy in mid-February 2014, the pharmacy's annual run rate has increased from $6 million to $32 million.

(1)
Wow. $2.7M is certainly much much higher than anyone had guesstimated. More impressive than the number itself is the fact that the month-over-month growth percentage GREW from last month -- even with a much higher base number by which to compute said percentage by.

(1a)
This makes me even more convinced that the best route forward for SCRC is to obtain licenses in additional states ASAP. IMO, this MUST be the highest priority for SCRC -- even much more important than lauching PIMD, growing WRx, or even launching RapiMeds or trying to acquire additional compounding pharmacies.

SCRC is doing $2.7M per month (and growing) for just 7 states. And I doubt that those states include TX or CA, two massive states with dense population centers. There are 43 more states for Main Ave's sales reps to sell to.

The cost of this new revenue source is very low -- simply the cost of licensing -- so the ROI is insanely high with ZERO need to raise capital (and, ergo, ZERO need to further dilute shareholders).

No other potential revenue source for SCRC can match this. PIMD can't. WRx can't. Even RapiMeds can't (at least not for many years following launch as it grows its brand recognition). And none of these other potential revenue sources can be tapped without additional costs that are exponentially higher than the measly licensing costs of Main Ave obtaining licensure in additional states. No other revenue source can be tapped w/o the need to raise capital and dilute shareholders -- only obtaining licensure in additional states for Main Ave can accomplish this.

(2)
Regarding the comments/questions posted previously re: the language "approved orders" vs "revenues", it is my own personal opinion that these are indeed one and the same for the following reasons:

(2a)
The 10Q disclosed the followng nugget:

"Beginning in February 2014, we began recognizing revenue for prescriptions shipped directly to patients from our specialty pharmacy business, Main Avenue Pharmacy Inc., which only ships prescription products to patients upon payment approval by the patients’ insurance company, payments are usually received with 30 days of product being shipped."

What this disclosure tells us is that (i) SCRC records revenues when orders are shipped, and (ii) Orders are shipped when approval is obtained from the customer's insurance company. Therefore, by the transitive property, revenue recognition occurs concurrent with obtaining approval from the insurance company. In essence, "Approved Orders" is synonymous with "Revenues".

(2b)
Also, SCRC stated in the PR that the 69% growth exceeded the 67% growth from last month. This is significant, IMO, because even though Bob has shown that he will try to be vague and try to make an apple look like an orange, he is not stupid enough to actually make a direct comparison of an apple to an orange by stating outright that an apple is an orange.

As such, by directly comparing to what was clearly described as "revenues" last month (the 67% growth), it is the most logical and likely interpretation to conclude that the basis for his current 69% growth is also "revenues".

(2c)
For those who have actually paid attention to SCRC's filings and PR's, this is simply another sloppy case of SCRC exhibiting poor "consistency" and "continuity". These are two (of many) measures/attributes that the Street assess a company by in evaluating the quality of mgmt and the degree of faith and confidence to place in the veracity of a company's PR's and filings.

"Continuity" refers to the homogeneity of the presentation and disclosure of like items. For example, the most notable example of how SCRC failed in "continuity" was in the 10K when it disclosed that some newly issued dilutive shares were restricted but failed to disclose that other newly issued shares were also restricted when they both were equaly restricted.

"Consistency" refers to disclosing homogenous items the same way accross filings. So in the current case re: JUN revenues, SCRC screwed up by describing revenues as "approved orders" when it more clearly described them as "revenues" in prior disclosures and PR's.


Again, not saying I'm right. Rather, this is simply MHO, but to me it is the most logical explanation given the information publicly available.

If anyone has alternative theories or sees flaws in my logic and conclusions, I am open to re-considering this theory.