kory, granted, my view was not right on gtw's growth rate (i would have checked it but i don't know how to get data back that far). that is precisely why i put in question form. you answered the question and i learned something - as did others. i never try and misinform people. i'm not gtw management ;-)
doesn't mean i'm infallible by any stretch of the imagination.
as for 150% appreciation, i stick to it as being totally reasonable. if i used the low for 1996, i would have said 400%. the low was $10, kory. is the chart wrong?
here is the chart...
quote.yahoo.com
again, i'm not manipulating data. i took the avg for 1996 and the avg for 1998. i didn't take the low for 1996 and the high for 1998 b/c then i would have said 500%. 150% and 500% are two vastly different numbers. looking at the chart, your $33 value was higher than gtw ever closed at in 1996. maybe the graph is wrong.
however, i think it is reasonable to compare q4 to q4 so i'm not accusing you of manipulating data. the extra $3 or $4 per the chart doesn't make too much difference in reducing the growth rate.
so, you know that $20 was about the avg price for the 1996. $50 was about the avg price for 1998. that is a 150% increase, right? it is reasonable to use avg price for a year's period as the earnings are earned over the 12 month period right?
150% stands as a reasonable calculation. i didn't use 400% nor 500%. maybe i didn't use the calculation you would use, but what i did was totally reasonable, nonetheless.
nothing sinister here, kory.
good luck... |
