Revenue for June Quarter 2000 was $335,120 and Revenue for 2000 was $509,289, or 52% higher... SEVU purposedly, in my view, avoided to point out that in the broader and more accurate picture, the 6 months ended June, SEVU made $50,000 more in the 2000 period, resulting in GROSSLY misleading reporting:
Revenue for 6 months ended 30 June 2000: $756,188
Revenue for 6 months ended 30 June 2001: $706,471
I cannot recall seeing a company, solely point out figures that make them look good, while ignoring those not so pretty, when reporting Financial results published in their 10Q...
SEVU LOST $91,703 in June 2001, as compared to LOSING $790,160 for the June 2000 Quarter, so talking about a Net income improvement of 88.4% - I can't even figure the percentage used - is completely ABERRANT and DISHONEST, in my view...
Even the 10Q says it: Net (Loss) Income: $ (91,703)... The figures are in Bracket and the word "LOSS" should be employed instead of the word "Income"... The correct way to write it in the PR would be: Net LOSS was reduced by xx%....
I doubt very much that any reputable Attorney Firm would sign off on such a Misleading PR, that appears to be so on purpose... So, I am done believing anything coming out of SEVU again....
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
