Shades: I will try to be a bit more succinct in my response.
I like elaboration better.
1. IOM had a publicly verifyable # of shares outstanding for trading
have there ever been any BB's short squeezed in the past, if so what were their TA's like, we have both already admitted IOM may not be the correct comparison.
2. IOM had an internationally recognized marketed product.
RMIL has only their internally produced PR News releases and again telephone conversations which are accepted by some as "fact"
Water is a far more internationally recognized product than a zip drive, common people in these poor polluted countries will not pay for a zip drive, they will pay for PURE water that saves their life, I have lived in several foreign countries and you would be amazed at how bottled water is the main source for drinking, they do not have the fresh water or treatment plants like we do in America, when your very life is at stake, would you rather have some PURE water or a backup drive? Will a zip drive give you magnesium that can save your life?
3. IOM had for 10 years or more the same management in place
and a history of pulicly released "audited" 10K's and quarterly
published 10Q's.
RMIL has had what to me look's like a revolving door where management changed like the wind direction in my old home town
Albequerque - very frequently.
And we all agree previous management was awful, but if you have read the RESUMES of lan and LIANG, those are not the qualifications of criminals, but of HIGHLY successful business people.
4. IOM had not only a vocal chorus of supporters on the Internet
but momentum fund managers who put large bets on their prospects. Again publicly verifyable.
Does that mean there is not a short in RMIL?
RMIL has what appears to be a small devoted group of supporters
who have chosen to essentially follow the direction of one man,
I have already admitted it was MIKE D KUGLER who saved me, but I am not folowing him.
and those who on their own have nade calls to RMIL accept face value what they are told without any concrete evidence to back it up. PR News releases are not hard cold facts. That's why they have those disclaimers at the bottom of them.
Do short squeezes require succseful management, do short squeezes require floating ships, do short squeezes require production lines, do short squeezes require accurate accounting records, do short squeezes require ANYTHING save for an illegal short position?
The mm's and shorts may have KNOWN the fundamntals of this one was a dog and that they could sink this to the ground and that all the records are bogus, that does NOT mean there is not an illegal short position, only that they got caught with their pants down in something they thought they wouldn't, they knew the risks, now they will pay.
5. IOM had short sellers who again on public record took positions banking on IOM's inability to perform and succeeed. The shorts did not come on board at $2. They attacked what they thought was a highly over priced stock based on the fundementals they had on hand.
As I think has happened with RMIL, they shorted because of the sorry fundamentals, then PURE water entered this game, and changed the rules, short squeezes require illegal short positions and NOTHING else.
Eventually after what amounted to almost wholesale slaughter those who were last on board to short made a killing when the stock collapsed from $55 to the $teens.
As I am sure will be the case with ours, the last to short will make some money too.
RMIL is accused of having "naked" short sellers and illegal shorts sellers. None of which is backed up by documentation or public record.
Does that mean they do not exist, or that you just can't check it, isn't MORK sending an employee here verification enough?
5. IOM had a chart pattern that showed at least a ten year base formation under an adjusted price of $5 a share. When the stock
IOM had that good management to give you that chart pattern too, RMIL had crap management for their past chart patterns, but NOT any more, you are comparing apples to oranges and that is not fair or accurate.
RMIL's chart shows a few months of "penny" level trading before its run to $4,
Again you are comparing charts from a succesful management of 10 years to crappy management, that is not fair, management like LIANG will turn things around and you are not taking that into consideration into your analysis, you are comparing crooks to college grads, compare the pros to the pros, not to the crooks.
where, if this were truly a heavily traded short issue relative
to market share supply, even without verifyable fundementals the momentum would have carried it much further on the upside.
Unless the MM's were manipulating the price. Don't you think it is a travesty in our system that the very people who are hurt worst by shorts also control stock delivery and pricing for those same short issues, we need a division of power there, the manipulation has gone to far and they will pay. That is like letting an employee write his own paycheck, why settle for less when he can have it all.
IMO the attempt to compare real short squeezes with RMIL is futile.
Are there any BB's you were aware of in your 48 years that got squeezed, how about comparing those?
with small capital inflow but I have seen nothing to convince me of the existence of a short position anywhere near that proffered by its principle proponent, nor does the market behavior of the stock coraborate it, even with today's rally.
Was Mork sending an employee not ENOUGH to verify that for you, what were his REASONS then, just because you can't prove there is a short position does not mean there isn't one. Let me ask this another way, in your 48 YEAR PROFESSIONAL OPINION why did MORK send an EMPLOYEE simply to BASH this stock and INCITE FEAR and PANIC.
As I have often said, for the sake of all who have risked money and are long this stock I wish to be proven wrong
You may very well be, can I ask you an honest question TL, in 48 years of this game, have you EVER learned how to short, if so, have you EVER shorted an issue, I NEVER HAVE and would like to hear why in 48 years wether you did or not?
is still limited to those who I have been associated with for many years and with whom I have shared many thoughts, not only as friends, but as paying clients. The assets spoken of here total well in excess of seven figures.
You never did answer my question on HOW I could join your fund?
If you will not teach me indirectly, have a heart and let me give you some money. |
