"The joke is entirely on you and the biggest irony is you still don't get it. .... the fact is that any investor who listed to Paul is now showing profit even if they bought before CC forced the price down, let alone if they made 2.5 times buying when Paul called the bottom."
Let me show you something about your blather. Now I don't expect that you ever will "get it" because this has been shown to you before but, maybe someone will understand the fallacies in your statements.
Look at the chart below:
techstocks.com
Now, compare the track record of VLNC management, the (observed by bulls on this thread) paucity of information to shareholders, the stream of delayed production schedules, the balance sheet, the R&D status, the single product it has been trying to develop, the lack of analyst coverage, the floorless financing, and the stream of below market share offerings and think about relative risk levels of VLNC against the other six names on the chart.
In other words, if the company specific risk of the other companies even had been as high as VLNC, VLNC would have been a significantly inferior investment than 4 of the 6 and better than only one of the six.
Now, factor in risk - none of the six have near the level of company specific risk as VLNC does - neither 100 days ago nor today. VLNC has not been - even with the recent increase to the levels of 12 months ago - an intelligent investment.
Rearview analysis? Well, of the seven names on the chart I have owned 6 of them and continue to own 4 of them, having eliminated a position in one last week.
Try 100 weeks or 100 months as well.
techstocks.com
techstocks.com
Now, try to get smart by thinking for yourself rather than making weak assumptions and following others inferior thinking. |
