>>Z, enjoyed your comment on stock price. Securing the listing will make the stock marginable eventually, when it can sustain the $5 level. You overlooked that out two spikes came without the pressure of a boatload of converted warrants still hanging. IMO, there are a boatload still to churn through in 15,000 chunks, and the day traders will play between $4-5. Frankly, we also have some small matters like Price/sales ad Price/book to look at once on nasdaq. The competition is heating up, we're in for a bigger battle than most believed. And frankly, I've done much better in IDTC (as ELK can tell you), than FTEL.<<
From the above I need further clarification as follows:
"....You overlooked that out two spikes came without the pressure of a boatload of converted warrants still hanging..."
How can I overlook what could not possibly be there?, I mean, at the time of the 1st. spike, the warrants were not available therefore, my reference to that spike is merely "historical", i.e. "what happened".
Then in my comment in the same post you are responding to I do make mention of such possibility: (2nd. spike, and possible subsequent ones). Key words are "STILL UNSOLD EXISTING", implying that such selling started earlier. i.e.: 2nd. spike).
**>>"...This is where our fire test will come in: a preliminary top (possible final top), could be formed by the hordes of stock that could be coming in to be sold as current accumulation begins to sell, further aggravated by whatever still unsold existing inventory of early investors..."<<**
Further, in my posts # 29286
**>>"...Why? Possible scenarios are two (in my opinion), One we have a boat load of shares being converted and "cashed in" from a number of sources, primarily early investors, possibly employees (including former, possibly). Alternatively, we have a bunch of "mercenary warriors" (day/short term traders) that as soon as we go near $4.00, and then approach $5.00 they "buy and sell"...."<< **
In addition, the discussion really begun by Mr. Slater who made very valid points in post #2937, in which he makes mention of what you indicate I overlooked. Then I simply responded adding to the opinion.
>>"...Several Factors are playing here.With so many people making a market it has become a detriment to the up side instead of becoming a plus as in all normal likelyhood it should have been.The deciding factor i believe was the involvement of more then one MM having their hand in the Kitty "so to speak"and the fact that so many shares in 5 different forms are available to sell.The up side has been artfully held down for obvious reasons.So thus the down will continue to fill the gap.The fact so much vol can be moved and the spread stay so thin indicates that manipulation is being acomplished.You can't raise the spread if you can't sell the stock.So you have a position of low confidence verses a position of increasing tender as the price moves up.The down side is bouyed by the positive while the up is capped by the limit of buyers....<<
The point of this "nick picking" if you will, is not that I have a desire to say the last word, I do not care about that, but it puzzles me why you are doing your own "nick picking", and then adding the comments like :
>>IMO, there are a boatload still to churn through in 15,000 chunks, and the day traders will play between $4-5.<<
Why 15,000 chunks? Am I "overlooking" something? How do you know these lots would be traded at this specific number of shares?
>>Frankly, we also have some small matters like Price/sales ad Price/book to look at once on nasdaq.<<
Indeed, they are small, should there be a specific alliance, and Nasdaq listing I fail to see the logic that the price in essence will actually go down based on your argument. It seems to me that the market is in disagreement with you for now, and repeating I fail to see the logic that the price would actually go down as you are suggesting, (and I believe you have reasoned so in prior posts, please correct me if I am wrong).
Finally, this last comment really made me think of Detective Colombo:
>>The competition is heating up, we're in for a bigger battle than most believed. And frankly, I've done much better in IDTC (as ELK can tell you), than FTEL.<<
We do know that competition is heating up, I failed to see the connection in mentioning IDTC...?
As to the reference to Elk? I believe that in post # 29370
So at this point, I really am confused and I would like to be "enlighten" as to where are you coming from, and more importantly where are you leading to ?
STOP PRESS ******************
I just read your response to Elk's question:
Elk, It was a mystic comment that indicated that I knew you were into IDTC by the same time I was into it, which was during December. Now look at what both companies have done over the last 3 months. One has become a darling to own, the other still in its infancy. I think FTEL shall eventually garner the same kind of support that now is seen in IDTC. They are much further along in their growth path, and as I'm much more a short term holder than most here, I'm willing to give up the beginning of a substantial move in FTEL in order to put the resources to work elsewhere. Just different philosophies for managing money. I still believe in FTEL and their eventual profitability.
Mystic??
Hardly so, Mr. Kirlin I do not believe in "mysticism", particularly when it comes to the stock market...
When you make comments: like ".I'm much more short term holder than most here." and ".Just different philosophies for managing money."
You are volunteering such comments, Elk did not ask for such.
*** BOINK! ***
So may be is my own distrustful mind working overtime, or perhaps is my own secret desire to really be lieutenant Colombo. Exactly what is your point? Were are you leading to?
I do not mind if you are a day/short term trader, even if you have a negative view on FTEL, but please, could you be a little clearer in what you are trying to say, forcing to read "between the lines" many times leads to misunderstandings.
For some strange reason, the real meaning of one's words, eventually sieves through the screens and veils that one weaves with these same words of ours.
Just the facts, Lucrecia, only the facts. |
