Blaine
Perhaps you should reread my post and the annual report. At 12/31/95, XICO has a tax "asset" of $34,139,000-at a 34% tax rate, this equates to $100,000,000 of tax free earnings (I was being conservative and did not have the report in front of me at the time). My post did not state that XICO would pay no taxes at all (In fact, I noted that it does not pay a MATERIAL amount of taxes-I didn't think I needed to explain each detail to people who presumably have the recent earnings releases). Most analyst reports use 40% as an assumed tax rate (includes California taxes) absent large credits. I did not state that XICO would pay at that rate. I am not sure of the point of the alt.min tax discussion-the .08 would be spread out over the period of time necessary to earn $70 million or whatever number you want to use-probably 3 or 4 years to earn that kind of money-so the .08 would be spread over at least 12 to 16 quarter and not material. In any event, it is not germane to the point I was making.
As to Brian Harvey and the timing of his statements, the facts speak for themselves. I am not attempting to impugn motives to him or you, apparently you took it that way. However, specifically, the .18-.20 per share did not occur. I follow about 15 chip stocks, and since early June-XICO has been the single weakest stock as measured by pct. decline and on-balance volume. Some of the other stocks-ALTR, XLNX, MCHP, ATML, LLTC, MXIM are all off their recent lows in price and more so in on balance volume.
Coincidence or not, at least this thread got more active after my post, and no, I don't live in a hole, and until recently, I was a securities lawyer who occassionally wrote IPO prospectuses. |
