I didn't see in the article that cost of goods went up, Jim T. Did I miss it? And if it wasn't in the article, does it assume facts not in evidence? The bottom line here, I think, is that profits are up 78% according to your article. Now, I could imagine that the overall cost of goods would go down, if you cut production. You buy less, it costs less. Obviously, if you produced nothing, your need for raw materials drops to nothing. Although it might go up per unit manufactured due to loss of quantity discounts on components or cost of shipping bulk raw materials under certain circumstances if volume of production went down, and the cost of shipping finished product might go up if you lost quantity discounts as well from your shipping companies. Make fewer widgets, it costs more per widget to manufacture and ship. Of course, if cost of goods went down, and price of product went up, the result would be increased profits, would it not? If the price of a box of ammo doubled overnight, would you not expect the profit margin to double overnight too though? But if you significantly cut the production of the product, and still doubled the price overnight, isn't it a possibility that your profit margin might only change by some number like 78% if the cost of manufacturing and shipping went up? The price per box of ammo, powder,primers, casings, and bullets did double on the shelves. I saw that with my own eyes. It happened almost overnight. In some cases it trebled and more. The articles says profits only went up 78%. So, was that due to raw materials going up overnight (I didn't see that with my own eyes), or production being reduced while resultant prices skyrocketed?