>>>If we have a disconnect here, the reason is that you've forgotten what you wrote in your own post.<<<
Mark, I normally don't like to get into "you said this, he said that" sorts of discussions on these message boards, but in this case, your self-righteous indignation is misplaced. Please, look again at Michael's original post. The first 20% is devoted to a discussion of revenue; the remainder is dedicated to a discussion of profits and profit margins.
>>>OK, in my post, change "acquisitions" to "acquisition(s)". Are you happy now? Why do you work yourself up to such a tizzy over trivialities<<<
You made the claim that WIND had made many acquisitions; Michael challenged your statement, and noted that you had been corrected on this point before. Now you consider the point a "triviality"?
>>>Wind River had $25.053m in revenues in 1993 and there were 10.455m shares, or $2.40/share. Before the secondary offering and the stock split, revenues were $44m and there were 15.491m shares, or $2.84/share. The increase over the 3 year period is 18%, or 6% annually. This represents a slow growth rate and is substantially less than the 164% that you dreamed up. The company has a bright future, but the rear view mirror looks very grim.<<<
Now you've gone off the deep-end. Your figures only make sense if you think WIND applied the funds it received in the secondary offering to its revenue figure. Your not claiming they did that, are you Mark? Then, exactly what are you saying? |
