RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Why I'm voting NO on the pNot only is it "by 2015", they've made it seem like some sort of hopeful, maybe-I'll-reach-it, target. Based on the info I've pieced together, that 'by 2015" target is what has been actually booked and doesn't need any future signings to be achieved. The market must be interpreting the "by 2015" target as hopeful and not for sure or the stock price would be much higher than it is right now.
I also believe the $200 million by 2015 is low-balling the actual booked revenues. In addition, the revenues booked must go out further than 5 years so they should be explicitily telling us that too (based on that weighted life of revenues calculation I tried to explain in previous posts). The actual booked revenues are well over $1 billion and probably over $1.5 billion.
So, W-Lan should give the total 'backlog' (for lack of a better term) number. The minute they do this, the stock price would shoot to $10 and then continue to rise on speculation of future signings.
Chi.