Re: [AGA-sc] One little thing

["S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com>]

You too? Me too; why I only sent it in draft. It's the best
I could pull together in any reasonable amount of time and
with the available data. I thought it more important to get
the report out than to delay and try to further parse
transactions prior to June 2004. There is more work that
could be done along that line, but it's a lot more work and
I'm not sure that it will give a much diff overall picture.


Having said that, I think you're right about the books. But
you have to consider that this report is a look at the cash
flows in 2004 only. It is not an assessment of any of the
activities over a longer period. In fact, there was $893 in
Payal at the end of 2003 that was not included inthe 2003
end-of-year bank palances because it had not been posted to
the account yet. I agree with Dave's having reprting it
that way. And, a more general point, insofar as this 2004
report includes the January through May period of 2004, the
Paypal stuff is right-on, but the rest is just allocated
based on the June through December activity (with some
adjustments for obvious things like AGA2K4). 

I think long-term analyses of the activities on a purely
financial basis, e.g., how much all the books we purchased
cost us and how much they brought in, would be good if
enough of the data was handy. And I too note that, with
such a low return on books over what I understand to be
their purchase prices to the AGA, Books would indeed net
rather low if assessed over a longterm period. That sort of
analysis is useful precisely for gauging the return on
investment of the diff activities over the long term.
Oddly, such analyses are difficult for us, not because one
should factor in time-discounting on the value of money,
but because the data is not collected into a nice neat
handy database -- with the exception of DW's books which we
buy as we go and so any cash flow time period longer than 1
month captures all the info.

But the AGA is like fine red wine; it gets better as it
ages.

sh



--- Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com> wrote:

> Something's bugging me about these numbers... OK, the
> $640 net for media 
> sales sounds right, but I know that we sold a boatload
> more CD's and DVDs 
> than books last year.  So why does Book Sales show a
> disproportionately 
> high net revenue, which then feeds in and allows it to
> grab a 
> proportionately higher slice of the allocation pie in
> your final analysis?
> 
> Ah, I think I know...Didn't we buy those books (APHB and
> Tropica) in 
> previous years?  So there would be no expenses for the
> actual cost of the 
> books in 2004, and any books sold would appear as pure
> profit (minus 
> mailing). So we probably didn't REALLY make $2200 in book
> sales, it's just 
> that if a similar analysis was done for 2003 or 2002 it
> would show it as a 
> loss or closer to break-even.  Had we been replenishing
> stock at the same 
> rate of sales, the net would have been lower.
> 
> I'm also note sure of how back issue sales related to
> books in the 
> Allocation analysis... guessing it was one of the
> categories that got 
> eaten up and fed into the six that were analyzed.
> 
>    - Erik
> 
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, S. Hieber wrote:
> 
> > Hearing Dave's name mentioned made me think about
> money.
> > And that's when I remembered my deadline for stitching
> > together a 2004 financial report.
> >
> > Letting the quest for neither quantity nor quality
> stand in
> > the way of progress, I am submitting for question and
> > comment a draft report.
> >
> > If it flies, we can commit it to the archives. Those
> that
> > misbehave will have to stay after class and commit it
> to
> > memory.
> >
> > ciao,
> > sh
> 
> -- 
> Erik Olson
> erik at thekrib dot com
> _______________________________________________
> AGA-sc mailing list
> AGA-sc@thekrib.com
> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc
> 

_______________________________________________
AGA-sc mailing list
AGA-sc@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc