Forum Archive Index - August 2002

["B.Bourke" <bbourke@world-net.co.nz>]

Re: >a) >They have faulty calculators or haven't mastered simple arithmetic. 22 cents >is an 88% difference from $2.50; a considerable difference from 500%; & B. >Bourke, despite your protestation, when comparing 88% with 500%, the >difference DOES matter. i.e. It is a material difference ( or one shouldn't be >investing )   Well, I think I have a better explanation for this discrepancy than the Directors of FFS had at the shareholder meeting when they tried coming up with a reason why they should go ahead with CITIC (again !!) "My sincere apologies to all for me getting my maths wrong. I have discovered what the problem is.My computer is infected with a virus called the ‘Enron Virus’ This virus infects the calculator part of the programme and exhibits itself as follows: If the calculation was to result in a negative number, then the Enron virus changes the result to a positive. If the result was going to be a positive answer anyway, then it adds a ‘0’ to the answer. This explains how –80% (or there abouts) became 500% !!. My software service people tell me that there several viruses like this. There’s the Air New Zealand virus, which exhibits itself by ignoring all signs of any type. Then there is the Rugby Union virus, which is noticed by sudden and complete loss of memory (the effect is similar to having a short circuit or an open circuit!). They also tell me that there are other viruses as well , but their mode of operation is not understood yet. They all have the same result in that they effect the calculator part of the programme and they all result in calculations that always have a result that is less than you started with!!. Some are identified and among them are: The Telecom virus, the Carters virus, the Forest virus, and the Natural Gas virus.  Apparently others are thought to lurk in the ether!!  They suspect that a more recent one is the Fonterra virus - although what it does and how it works is still a complete mystery." I dont care how one looks at it,  A $250,000 investment in 1994 (in an industry that hasn't had major shocks and it is claimed that the market is short of the basic product) that is now worth $22,000 is a disaster by what ever means is used to measure it. There is no excuse or reason that can justify this level of shareholder wealth destruction. Nor is there any reason to think that the board (whichever one) can make growth decisions.   Bernard Bourke