When a company says they are going to release financials audited by PWC (see the thread header), which turns out to be a blatant verified lie...
I called KPMG in Canada, and they confirmed that they were doing the audit. I don't know about PWC, but the fundamental point that a major auditing firm was involved was accurate.
FWIW, the reason I called KPMG was that I had found the company's PR's and the passion of its advocates quite extraordinary and thus was considering an investment as a short. Alas, after talking to KPMG, I decided, to use your phrase, "Never mind". Clearly those who made money buying the stock were smarter/bolder than I. The purpose of my previous post was to point out what I consider the responsibilities of such people (or, for that matter, anyone who takes a long or short position in a stock and then posts vociferously). While I am unsure about whether the optimism/pessimism of message board activity directly affects the price of a stock on a moment-by-moment basis, it is a certainty that people inform themselves about stocks by visiting the boards. Some of those people are newbies who want to find comfort in community, and others, such as myself, are looking for impassioned, uninformed longs or shorts in order to take the other side. Obviously people such as myself deserve whatever bad thing happens to them; I was only suggesting that newbies deserve better treatment. If I were visiting a car forum (to choose an area where I am an uninformed newbie), I think I deserve not to be misled by posters there (though I would expect a certain amount of enthusiasm for the choice that someone had already made).
Tommy Hicks wrote:
There are very few people here and on IHUB who play these penny stocks with "honesty and cynicism."
Actually, though they are not well loved in these parts, I think the Golden Lists crew by and large fits my description.
Rrufff wrote:
If this stock is such a scam, why not talk about the stock, specifics, issues that have not been raised?...If you look at the last several hundred posts, there is almost nothing here about the stock, nothing that is new, nothing that would really help one in deciding what to do with respect to this stock.
While discussing specifics, especially new ones, about SLJB is an admirable goal, it is tough under the current circumstances. We know two things about the company for certain: it has a legitimate business, and at least one of its previous managements was disreputable. We have to wait to find out more about exactly how legitimate and exactly how disreputable. Waiting is boring, so people talk. And because this company attracted a lot of interest--even among people such as myself who didn't pull the trigger--there is liable to be a lot of talk. Companies such as this--which combine elements of a scam with a legitimate business--are always interesting to dissect afterwards. But I agree with everyone who has said that it would be nice if that dissection could be done without ad hominem attacks. |
