RiceBran Technologies

First-quarter 2023 revenue was $9.3 million, down 12.2% from $10.6 million in the prior-year quarter. Gross loss was $300,000 versus gross profit of $500,000 in Q1 2022, and operating loss widened to $2 million from $1.2 million. Net loss was $2 million, or $0.31 per share, compared with $1.5 million, or $0.29 per share, last year; adjusted EBITDA loss was $1.2 million versus $400,000 in Q1 2022. SG&A expenses were $1.7 million, unchanged year over year, and cash and equivalents were $3.4 million at March 31, 2023, down $500,000 from December 31, 2022. The company did not provide next-quarter or full-year operating guidance, instead saying the board’s strategic review of alternatives is ongoing.

Peter Bradley framed the quarter around a broader strategic review rather than day-to-day operating progress. He said prior management strategies had not created sustainable scale to support the business’s fixed costs, which is why the board is exploring strategic alternatives, and he noted there is active interest in the company’s assets. On operations, he said milling performance held at the prior quarter’s level and that the Golden Ridge arrangement continued to improve results, while the MGI capacity upgrade was completed and fully online, creating a stronger platform for future growth.

William Keneally gave the financial results in detail: revenue of $9.3 million, gross loss of $300,000, SG&A of $1.7 million, operating loss of $2 million, net loss of $2 million, or $0.31 per share, and adjusted EBITDA loss of $1.2 million. He attributed the year-over-year decline mainly to the added value derivatives business, while noting SG&A was unchanged as expenses were being tightly managed. He also said cash and equivalents were $3.4 million at March 31, 2023, down $500,000 from December 31, 2022 because of cash used in operations and capital expenditure, and mentioned $300,000 of other income from restitution payments ordered by a federal court in 2012.

There was no analyst Q&A on the call. Management said it would not take questions because of the sensitive nature of the strategic review, and said the alternatives are at various stages of review. The main added context was that there is active interest in the assets and several possible outcomes are being evaluated, but no further details were provided.