Replies to post #6160 on CryoPort Inc (CYRX)

[Lucky Larry]

What you’re saying is this. Say you live on the golf course and you are going to set up a lemonade stand in your backyard. You have a total investment of $100. While out back building your stand, some guys come by and buy 10 cups of your lemonade for $ 1.00 each. You now have earnings of $10 and your investment is $ 100 or 10x earnings. What you don’t tell everyone is that you live at Augusta National and tomorrow is the start of the Masters. I’ll bet business picks up and you better be buying more lemons.

[sdbio]

I agree with the numbers but I still don't understand the logic. The cost of the revenue for the existing shippers is already spent, and all future rentals on those dewars will be profit. I understand that $42K is not going to pay the bills.

Saying that every time CryoPort rents a shipper it loses money is not correct. Currently the cost of revenue does exceed the revenue, but the cost of revenue is fairly fixed. If the number of shipments increase it will eventually exceed the costs. The secrete is getting to that point which has not been easy and maybe they never do.

Your statement seems to say that no matter how many shipments CryoPort makes it will lose money. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your statement.

[LongCYRX]

flyers, you are reading the sec filing but it takes a little critical thinking to understand it.

What you are not taking into consideration is a business concept called economies of scale. Cost of revenues is made up of fixed and variable costs both of which will not necessarily go up if sales go up. The fixed costs component includes things such as warehouse rent. Do you think they will buy an additional warehouse if they make another shipper?

Also if you notice the most recent numbers, three months ending December 2009, sales increased while the cost of revenues decreased. $20,707/$132,418 or basically 1/6th. If cryoport actually does significant volume this will be taken care of.