The debate is about THIS stock declining on a RS based on WDDD facts and it's specific situation
I have provided rational fact based reasons that the typical drop on a RS wouldn't apply here and the counter was "it just does because other companies do and have". Interestingly, some companies have actually traded up on RSplits, so that argument is insufficient, especially since no factual information as to WHY it would trade down is provided:
Suggesting "it just does or it just will" when faced with the fact dilution of a material size won't occur, and shorting is financially prohibitive for people to undertake is illogical.
If I'm missing something please provide such insight
It's important for all investors to rely on correct logic based on facts to avoid making false comparisons
On VHC / VRNG CAFC decisions I had to show an self stated "group of patent experts" lol that the assumed basic premise of apparent risk was invalid; something a patent neophyte could have learned by simply reading the vhc rulings
Here; saying RS = share price down doesn't account for wddd specific FACTS and oversimplifies the issue based again on incorrect comparisons and assumptions . Yet that's all that's being said and my facts are not being refuted.
Facts of the each specific situation matter, and if I'm incorrect then;
A. Prove my facts incorrect with factual information.
B. Or provide and alternative explanation on how it would trade down to its current level absent those issues I raised if they are accepted
That is what debate is about. Not "I'm right because I think so based on different companies facing very different circumstances and situations".
Could it trade down sure it could, but not bc of dilution or shorting like other companies, therefore if that is the logic implicit in the comments made, which it seems to be- the logic is faulty.
