RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Don't know if this has already come up....Yes "my own calculation" proves it would be more than 1 % BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP ANNUALIZING IN THE FIRST PLACE to illustrate YOUR annualized logic. Are you insane?? There is nothing to rebut here. Your own words say :"annualized, it is more than 1% of the shares"..... you are the one bringing up annualizing a buy-back to begin with. If you didn't mean to insinuate this don't mention the word ANNUALIZED FROM THE START. You CANNOT annualize a buy back nor even make such an inference as you cannot extrapolate over 4 quarters! My calculation was simple: 599900/21,200,000 * 100 = 0.2839 % for $ 15.2 M Canadian. JIN
vestor111 wrote: That is funny.
Here is my original post that
you said "No also incorrect:" (funny how you left that out of you failed rebutal.) "Annualized, it is more than 1% of the shares. I hope they are using this down draft wisely."
Now if you read it again...there is absolutely nothing "incorrect" about what I said. In fact, your own calculation proves IF annaulized would be "more than 1%".
I did not suggest it would be annualized and there is nothing to conclude that I did.
Although perhaps with a really healthy cash flow it could be or more. BUT I NEVER SAID THAT EITHER! LOL!
Give it up you were mistaken repeatedly and can't admit it. Ooops.