"No, that's what I'm accusing you of doing. The "Jerk" is someone who constantly feels like they have to rub it in someone's face every chance they get. That just about fits you like a glove."
You are the one f@cking hypocrite here. You accuse me
of jerking while doing this in first place? I was not
talking to you in that remark to tcmay, did I? Why
the heck you popped out like a sprinkler? Who is a jerk?
"In regards to your last response ...maybe we can revisit this, since I'm sure it will make a difference to calculated EPS."
Certainly, certainly, the $1,000,000,000 per Quarter
is not like a pocket change, even for Intel.
"but I don't see how you can apply it to Intel, without also applying it to the rest of the industry."
You do not see? When Forbes magazine did calculations
on stock options buybacks, Intel popped up in the top
ten companies who use that accounting loophole beyond
any reasons. And you, of course, do not see this.
Very convenient. If those labor expenses would be accounted
in earning reports, Intel's true EPS would be 1/10 of
what is deceitfully reported now, and in few quarters
during the past 2 years Intel would be in the red.
And you do not see this, right? May it is why you
dropped the ball, since you cannot back up your bold
statement:
"However, their revenue minus yearly expenses is still a positive number..."
"...which is what reassures investors to keep their holdings in that stock"
Yes, suckers are in. But the WS stays calm, and does not
buy your brags about "ethernal profitability":
bigcharts.marketwatch.com
- Ali |
