TIM - My view, page-30

Cso,

1. I still found your posts lack of focus and often self-contradictory, such as in the following paragraph.

“I never said TIM's PE was 2 or 3. I and others have quoted GTP's as being so on many occasions. In my case, it was almost always referring to the PE of 2 they had at the lows last year.”

God knows what you meant by this paragraph! The discussion topic has always been whether it’s true that the “present” GTP’s p/e ratio is of 3, or it’s just a misleading information/rumour originated from a recent GTP statement posted on this board. But what on earth is your real opinion on this topic? Why did you say that “In my case, it was almost always referring to the PE of 2 they had at the lows last year” without touching a bit of the real topic? If you did not insist “the present GTP’s p/e ratio” being of 3, why should you insist me first to phone GTP, and then to email GTP after your phone request was declined? What a waste of time of your own and others! Frankly, I never understood what did you really want me to talk with GTP.

2. I can’t understand what’s the point for you to cite the GTP PE figure of 1.2 from the "Shares" magazine of September last year. You seem never understand a p/e value has to be a result of a share price at a *particular* time being divided by the earnings per share during a period of a *particular* year. The September SHARES last year was published in August, and used the GTP price of $0.425 at the end of July near its record low and the e/s of $0.349 during 1999 July - 2000 June of its historical high, as the 2000 - 2001 e/s was not yet available at that time. What another waste of time today in 2002 to use such a p/e with 2001 July’s price and 1999-2000's earning/s to prove the “present GTP’s p/e of 3"? If you could use such outdated data to produce “historical GTP’s p/e ratio”, what’s wrong with TIM if its website hasn’t updated for just 10 months? And why couldn’t Van Eyk call a section of such companies “a dead section”? By the way, in the same SHARES issue the TIM’s p/e was also written as 1.2 (exactly the same as GTP!), why should you forget to use it as an extra proof of GTP’s “present p/e ratio of 3"?