Daily News

View All News

DLH revenue rises 13%

February 13 2013

DLH Holdings Corp. (NASD: DLHC), a provider of healthcare and logistics staffing and services to the federal government, reported revenue rose 13.0 percent to $13.0 million in its fiscal first quarter ended Dec. 31, 2012, from $11.5 million in the year-ago period. The Atlanta-based company had reported year-over-year revenue growth of 20.7 percent in its fiscal fourth quarter.

“We began our fiscal year 2013 with the assumption that the federal government would continue to operate on a continuing resolution rather than an approved budget for our entire fiscal year, which has so far been the outcome,” said DLH President and CEO Zachary Parker.

“As such, we have assumed that government customers would have no new funding for new contract awards,” Parker said. “Combined with the uncertainties around ‘sequestration’ we anticipated continued paralysis with regard to new business awards within DoD and most federal agencies. However, we remain confident in our strategy to focus on our country`s high priority mission programs and agencies. We continue to see new business opportunities and maintain a healthy pipeline for the future growth of the company.”

Gross margin improved to 13.8 percent in the first quarter from 13.6 percent the first quarter of the last year.

DLH reported a net loss of $128,000 compared with a net loss of $389,000 in the year-ago period.

The company had a market capitalization of $10.19 million, but shares were down 4.55 percent in morning trading, according to Yahoo.

The company also reported on Feb. 6 that it was back in compliance with Nasdaq listing requirments after the closing bid price of its common stock had been equal to or in excess of $1 per share for 10 consecutive business days, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

DLH Holdings Corp. (NASD: DLHC)
 For the first quarter ended Dec. 31, 2012, as compared with the year-ago period.
 Revenue: $13.0 million, +13.0 percent
 Net loss: $128,000 vs. net loss of $389,000

Comments

Add New Comment

Post comment

NOTE: Links will not be clickable.
Security text:*