Let me clear up this split issue.
You seem to prefer writing to reading.
If you had read my post, you would've known that I chose the time period before the split because
it's too early to know if the company has spent the money wisely. The second split came after the
secondary offering, so it's irrelevent to the discussion. If you ever get in the mood to read rather
than write, you might want to check out the prospectus to the secondary offering.
Here are the FACTS from WIND's 1996 secondary offering prospectus:
YEARS ENDED JANUARY 31,
------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995 1996
--------- --------- --------- ---------
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT DATA:
Total revenues............................................... $ 25,053 $ 27,341 $ 32,100 $ 44,000
Operating income............................................. 3,059 523 3,452 8,130
Net income................................................... 1,721 332 2,460 5,383
Net income per share......................................... .16 .02 .17 .35
Common shares used in the calculation of net income per
share(2).................................................... 10,455 13,317 14,300 15,491
The following assertion you made is completely false:
The first split was in May '96, prior to the secondary offering. The split was 3:2 and accounts for the
increase in outstanding shares from ~10M to ~15M.
As you can see from the above data, the split has nothing to do with the increase in shares from ~10m to ~15m
and this plain fact decimates the misinformation you disseminated on this thread. How on earth do you expect
anyone to take your posts seriously, when you don't know basic facts about the company? Here you are arguing
with people about earnings growth and share dilution, and you never even read the secondary offering prospectus!
How come every time you "correct" me, it always turns out that I was the guy who was right? Dave, when
doesn't your repeated incompetence become an embarrassment to you? Most people would have given up long ago,
but you continue to flaunt your ignorance and attempt to pass yourself off as some kind of expert! You
demonstrate, once again, that you lack basic information about the topics that you so readily expound upon.
Don't you ever think before you write? You'd be a lot less prolific if you thought first! If you're disappointed
that I don't respond to most of your posts, the reason is that I read and think before writing and I expect
others to do the same. I hope you now realize that you're better off when I ignore you. |
