Owlnight, you need to read the posts with more understanding.
Now try your best to understand:
Here were Coles figures:
They could have been losing money on it yet...100,000 shares? When the shares were worth $3 they could have been paying the equivalent of $300,000 for a million in revenue that was making 2% margin....
amazing why would a company do that?
My Reply:
The agreement with CSI was signed in April 2005. In May 2005 they had the reverse split, I would assume his shares would have been adjusted 15 of his shares for 1 new share.
Easy to figure out he already used the $3.00 post split price. (got it so far) He failed to make an adjustment for the reverse split. So 100000 shares divided by 15 (the amount of the reverse split) would now become 6666.66 shares multiplied by $3.00 would be $20,000.
So as you can see there was no need to adjust the share price regarding that post....only the number of shares. Use your own method, bet you might come up with the same answer.
"There is no great honor these days in being a long (very long).......
Not a lot of profit either it seems."
