VFD- Thanks for posting an article which proves my point...(a couple posts back)
(I like the article, but, unbelievably...) The author at the end of (was it the second paragraph) quotes Ruettgers as guiding revenue growth as "exceeding 25%"...
In the very next line (next paragraph), the author says (something to the effect)...Now 25% growth is not too bad...
LAST TIME I CHECKED, exceeding means "in excess of"...meaning, of course, Ruettgers could mean 26, 28, 30, 32....but NOT 25%..........obviously, given the former (revenue) target was 35%, it is unlikely (although, technically for lack of a better word, possible he COULD also mean 35%)...logic would tell you that the safest "restatement" would be 25-30% growth (or to just repeat Ruettgers phrase "exceeding 25%" verbatim.........
For the author, in his/her arguments.....to take anyway that that extra 1-5% (or more)...well, in my mind, the reporter does us all a disservice...by misintepreting and misstating Ruettgers comments....This happens, obviously, all the time....but, sometimes, a 5% difference in growth (looking exponentially) can mean the difference between a fairly-valued or under/over-valued stock...
Words matter. Words have meaning. The folks in the press should be more careful.
Other than that (off my soapbox now <G>), I liked the article <G> |
