The only reason the earnings per share increased
was due to the smaller number of shares in the per
share calculations. This reduction was mainly due to
the fact that 20M shares related to the convertible
were not included since the conversion price is higher
than the market price. If you add them in to get a
fair comparison with last year you get $.15 earnings.
I don't know who they think they are fooling. It is
a misrepresentation to compare fully diluted
numbers with undiluted numbers.
I am sure are available some where near your
location. These services are often free or available at low
cost. Please take advantage of this chance to improve
your communication skills.
Simple spelling errors
detract greatly from the message you are trying to
Plagiarize is the correct spelling.
Short, I understand your question. There is a
rule (FAS 128 paragraph 96) which requires the use of
a "control number" for the denominator in the EPS
calculation. It states that when there are other EPS amounts
to report for the quarter, the control number
denominator is based on earnings from continuing operations
(net loss in PETM's Q4). All other EPS amounts will be
calculated using the same denomintor so that they will be
additive. Is it fair comparison in this case? No. Is is
according to GAAP? Yes! I suggest comparing the net income
dollar amount and ignore EPS, but remember are fewer
shares outstanding this year.
If this was answered
later, sorry don't want to appear to plagerize
two of the seven analysts following PETM have
upgraded their recommendations from buy to strong buy.
This could result in some more institutional buying,
and when coupled with Petsmart's stock buy back plan,
we should begin to see an upward bias.
Statement of Operations and you will see the
requisite disclosures. Here is the link,
Where does PETM fail to report "diluted" eps/lps? Where
does PETM compare "basic" versus "diluted" per share
Nowhere in the press releases I have seen do they
report earnings (excluding losses) using the fully
Do you think the earning
estimates were for diluted or undiluted earnings per
Q4 Statement of Operations for PETM and you will
see that PETM reported both "basic" and "diluted"
numbers. How are you determining that PETM violated SEC
regulations by not doing so? How did you determine PETM
compared a "basic" eps in 1999 with a "diluted" eps in
Do you understand my question? Can you
read financial statements?
petsmart losses last quarter whete due to uk sale
and petsmart.com. Uk is gone. That losses
show up next quarter. Petsmart.com is going to have is
own ipo. Is petsmart going to gain from the ipo ?
Comparing ipet with petsmart.com, ipet has less revenue and
more losses than petsmart.
You really don't seem to get my point. Let me
restate it clearly. PETM would have reported $.15 for Q4
earnings (excluding losses) if they had used the diluted
number like they did last year. I'm not sure of the SEC
rules for deciding when they must use the diluted vs
the undiluted number. In any event, they should have
reported both numbers so as to not confuse or mislead
investors. The whole point of reporting the earnings
excluding charges is to help investors understand how the
business is doing. Do you understand my point?
Maybe blsh can help out out on the rules for using the
diluted vs the undiluted number. I'm sure there is no
rule for providing both diluted and undiluted
Do you think the earnings estimates were for
undiluted or diluted numbers? They are usually for fully
diluted numbers. In my opinion PETM management used the
undiluted number to show they met the earnings estimates. I
feel they missed the earnings number. They did however
succeed in convincing the financial press that they did
meet the estimate.
Serious investors do no
take kindly to this sort of
you posted. You conveniently omitted the articles
Thursday March 2, 4:10 pm Eastern Time
PETsMART, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter Results
Operating Income Increases 39 Percent
the important disclosure is operating income is up
39%. Why did you not include this in your previous
BTW ... I already showed you
that Q4 operating income was up over 9% with the
adverse impact of system conversion costs and store
opening expense spend ... 20% if you exclude those items.
See post 16290.