It stands to reason that shareholders will have a more positive outlook on a company. That's why they're shareholders. It's important, though, to find out why others aren't shareholders. One-sided information is useless. Both sides must be presented.
True enough.
And when the most vocal shareholders are unable to present *facts* about a company, and choose to, instead, attack the non-shareholders, it's an important red flag.
The vice versa is also true. It's a two-way street.
I got rid of 1/3 of my shares when it looked like the Riley/Pugs hype machine was in high gear on it, then the rest a few days later when it became obvious that the company itself is likely part of the game.
Machine?? High gear?? Because they happen to like the stock, you think that constitutes a "machine" being in "high gear"?? I've often noticed some of the same shareholders'/posters' names on various SI threads. Do you think they are "machines" also because they like some of the same stocks?? Ridiculous. And to state "it became obvious that the company itself is likely part of the game" is, IMO, a dangerous and loose statement, especially since you don't - more likely CAN'T - back that up.
This company is just now newly being formed. I, like probably many others, are anxious for additional news and info so we can see better what this NEW company is about and where it is headed. It would be presumptuous I think, at the least, for you to consider the company so disparagingly at this point in time and at this point in its formation, especially given the favorable information known about Mr. Raabe. |
