Answer the question Internet bad ass. Are you impressed by the extra 5 cents the buyback added to the bottom line. I said the buyback and tax rate made the Q look better than it really was. You claim the EPS was "pretty good". So are you impressed by the extra 7 cents in the buyback and tax rate or not. That's what this is all about so try to stay on topic if you can handle it....In other words, if the Non GAAP EPS had been reported 7 cents lower (as it would on an apples to apples YoY comp) would you still say it was "pretty good"?????????
The only thing I learned is that you're a delusional liar. So let me ask you a question.
Point out ONE time where I've claimed you've taken a position that you haven't. Just one.
Yet you've done this consistently because your argument had no merit.
A sure sign of a feeble mind.
P.S. If this is about "balls," I'd be happy to meet and discuss this in person. But I'm guessing you won't have the "balls" for that.
You're kidding, right? Your whole argument has been based on misrepresenting my position. If you think I'm going to respond to questioning by an ignoramous like you, then you're truly delusional.
I've let a lot of your BS go, but let me call you on another one. You said that I called HP a value stock. Show me ONE place where I said that. Just one.
This is getting to be rote: me challenging you to back up your BS and you being unable to do it.
Try again. I dare you.
P.S. The best you'll be able to do is to show that you have no command of the English language.
Let's go - you'll keep on losing
Cat got your tongue? Honestly, I didn't expect you to have the balls to answer because if you say yes you are an idiot and if you say no you are agreeing with me.
This was fun. I hope you learned a lot.
"because you also think a lower tax rate and lower share count is impressive. You're borderline retarded"
Funny you call ME retarded. Because you either are really stupid, delusional, or a pathological liar.
Find me one place where I called either of those things "impressive." What I said was that you and pragcrap are full of it for calling them "artificial" or shenanigans.
Is English your second language? Because this is the only explanation for your poor reading comprehension besides simply being dimwitted.
So you're admitting another lie? The one where you wrote that I thought the "numbers," plural, were good? Don't you even know the difference between plural and singular?
And the paper you post is called a literature review, so it would be asinine to contact the Michigan professors because they are simply reviewing other people's work
And they said "not completely consistent," which leads me to believe that you cherry picked a quote. Considering how dishonest you've been and continue to be, I'm sure this is the case. "Not completely consistent means that they found studies that show the opposite.
Face it, you're inexperienced and not very smart.
My favorite line:
"One potential explanation for these empirical results is to view repurchasing as a defensive mechanism aimed at covering up management's poor earnings performance."
That just makes you look like such a little b1tch.