To: Ali Chen who wrote (174884 ) 5/18/2005 8:48:57 AM From: rkral Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 176387 Ali, re "You said you check your facts before posting... Yahoo historical prices for 1995 show the range from $.65 to $1.73 " By mistake I posted the (split-adjusted weighted-average) exercise price for the options exercised during FY96. For the option grants, the exercise price was $0.98 instead of "about a quarter" as I posted earlier. sec.gov (So I was off by a factor of 4 ... while you were off by a factor of 8. I suppose I should say "Just returning a favor " here. <g>) BTW options are not always granted at the market price, so checking the 10-K is a better method than checking historiccal prices. re "[ed: Weighted average basic shares] number for prior quarter was 2485M, and you call it "not an average". The same number for the last quarter is 2456M, and suddenly you have to treat is differently " I'm not treating it differently. You're assuming the weighted average shares outstanding *during* a quarter can't be the same as the shares outstanding *at the end* of the quarter. It does happen from time to time ... and it did happen for Dell's F05Q4. Shares outstanding at the end of a financial period may usually be found on the balance sheet. re "Could you please supply the formal definition of "weighted average"? " I have the feeling you're kidding me here, but ... Weighted average is "An average that takes into account the proportional relevance of each component, rather than treating each component equally. "investorwords.com An example for weighted average shares outstanding: If for the 91 calendar days of a quarter, the shares outstanding for 21 days is 2548, for 28 days is 2366, and for 42 days is 2457, then the weighted-average is 2450. (21 * 2548 + 28 * 2366 + 42 * 2457 ) / 91 = 2450 re "See, no matter what I/you try, it is impossible to determine anything of importance from the official report with any reasonable accuracy. " That looks like a red herring to me. re "Therefore, I treat all "information" with the accuracy it deserves, while you seem to be fascinated with 4-digit resolutions in reported numbers... " Whoa there! You're the one who tried to determine a small number of options exercised by taking the difference between two big numbers. How do you propose to do that *without* using 4-digit resolution? WAG it? Ron P.S. Could you please refrain from hitting the Return key mid-paragraph.