Push the wool out of your eyes, Mama Bear.
You're starting to resemble a certain other member of the animal kingdom instead of that intelligent and thoughtful Bear that I know you to be.
You said;
To me, an error of .05% (that's point zero five percent) is a negligible rounding error.
Negligible? Perhaps. An error? Indisputably. You yourself use the words 'negligible rounding error'. So even if, in your judgement, it is immaterial, or hypertechnical, or anal retentive, it doesn't change the fact that it is simply incorrect, untrue, erroneous. No amount of spin on the significance, importance, size of error, or 'whether it counts' changes the fact that the market cap was not 74 million on June 25, and that the share count is neither 22 million, as the report states, or 23.288 million, as was supposedly used to calculate the market cap.
The market cap "error" is also nonsense, since that was the market cap when the report was written. If you're seriously trying to suggest that either of these are real errors, my suggestion is to find someplace to buy a clue.
Have you calculated the SLPH market cap on either June 25 or June 26 using accurate numbers? Does it match the number in the SLPH report, even rounding off the share count, closing price, and total?
As I stated before, my own calculations are based on 22,712,800 shares outstanding (the number in SLPH's last SEC filing; in my book of clues that is a much more authoritative source than Bloomberg or any other third party information reseller), and even being very generous and rounding off to 22,700,000 as the report ostensibly does, and then multiplying by 3.15, I still get a market cap of
22,700,000 x 3.15 = 71,505,000
SLPH Report: 74 million
Maybe we could at least agree that at some point that difference of $2,495,000 in market cap will possibly be very significant to SLPH longs some day.
In any event, the challenge was very clear. Find 'one untruthfull statement in the SLPH report'. I've re-read both the challenge and the report several times, and I don't see anywhere that miscalculations or erroneous data due to unsubstantiation of sources are considered off-limits/out of bounds/excusable errors.
As I stated in my last post, I'm not interested in pursuing this any further. I just find it amusing that a challenge was issued to find any untruthful statements in the otherwise excellent SLPH report, and nobody here is man enough to stand up and admit that the numbers were not checked out; instead I'm being attacked by a horde of little white fluffy bleaters.
To everyone who has been critical of my responding to this challenge; thank you for the many suggestions as to what I should be doing. What I will in fact do, is to continue to follow the number one rule in my personal Book of Clues; Always do your own due diligence. If you would just push the wool out of your eyes for 5 seconds and do the calculations yourself, you will see that the numbers in the SLPH report are wrong. Call it rounding off if it pleases you, but it pleases me to know that I had enough of a clue to check the share count, the closing price, and the calculations myself. Did all of you?
Have a Happy Fourth, and remember, 'Two legs good, Four legs bad!' |
