Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : 10-Bagger MINIMUM Rise from July 1, 2005 until December 31, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: inchingup who wrote (1540)	12/6/2006 1:17:14 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 1694

You mis-stated my post. You used a silly surface ratio of PE to claim that it was overvalued. I turned the tables on you and used another silly surface ratio price to revenue to show that it is undervalued. Those are the games that the moronic generic basher plays and I just want everyone to understand that. My post states - look at the business and analyze it in depth. Then come back and tell us it is overvalued in its market place. Your post, which I attacked, is purely moronic generic bash, no in-depth analysis. Just one saying that this pinkie, in the process of developing a higher business base (top and bottom line at a rapid pace) currently has low earnings and that this does not justify the price. It's an absurd argument, in my opinion. You're entitled to your opinion though and you've made it in your own way. As for time frame, very few of the stocks mentioned have fulfilled promise during the time frame. Some have done better and then come back. (SLJB was as much as a 100 bagger and now "only" about a 10 bagger.) I think the readers here are looking for stocks that will do well in the future. I believe that LBWR is one that reward from here. The fact that it has disappointed some is a historical issue and of little value. I bought almost all my shares from .08-.10. It has not moved as quickly as I'd hoped but I'm willing to stick with it. Many or most here probably feel the same way and trade on the periphery of their positions to lower costs and accumulate more on dips. Most here understand that the low net income was expected and that's why the stock has not tanked significantly below the .10 level. I think we've explored this enough though. I think we both understand what the other is saying.

To: inchingup who wrote (1540)	12/6/2006 1:34:02 PM
From: inchingup	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1694

Is this the information you were looking for? On July 1, 2005, the date of inception of this board, LBWR closed at $.28. Yesterday it closed at $.10 or a loss of rruffly 60% during the past 17 months. In addition shares O/S have increased by 10%. Apparently the virtuoso increase in gross earnings to a +$21,000 for the first three quarters of 2006 came from the issuance of 3,200,000 shares in 2006 which netted the company about $110,000. (Great way to show a positive earnings report!!) Also, net income from operations decreased by over $60,000 from Sept. 05 quarter to Sept. 06 quarter if I am reading these somewhat funky financials correctly. But what you are saying to me in essence is that it doesn't make any difference, the company will of course make it up in quantity, right?