Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Jamie Catherwood's remarkable Timeline of All Things Finance from Luca Pacioli's invention of double-entry accounting in 1494 to the Dutch East India company in 1602 to the present. Fascinating. Click link below.
https://investoramnesia.com/financial-history-timeline/
"Warren Buffett on horse race wagering"
Very instructive.
"What Buffett and Munger both discovered is that making money in the stock market is much, much easier than making money at horse betting. For one thing, there’s no 14-25% track takeout. But it’s interesting how both markets teach similar lessons."
https://stevehely.com/2022/01/16/warren-buffett-on-horse-race-wagering
Similarly: "MEME ETF IPO: A Mistake that went badly"
From Seeking Alpha
Summary
* Roundhill Investments recently launched the MEME ETF, [symbol MEME} comprised of 25 securities that have a high "meme score" and high short interest.
*The pitch is straightforward: Although many of these stocks will fail, investors only need a few home runs to make them profitable.
* Unfortunately, MEME's passive indexing approach and 14-day minimum holding period mean losses are the most likely outcome.
* I will show that increased social media activity is a poor predictor of future returns, and hedge funds now have access to better data to protect against short squeezes.
* My recommendation is to watch with interest but not take a position in MEME. Speculative investing has a place in portfolios, but you're better off doing it with individual stocks on your own. Will and did Badly
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4474611-meme-etf-a-mistake-that-will-likely-end-badly
IHUB daytraders buy the "BUZZ" and suffer.
Created in March 2021, the fascinating VanEck Social Sentiment ETF [symbol: BUZZ] was created for the wrong reason, to track stocks enjoying current buzz on the web. It's performed dreadfully, consistently underperforming the S&P by about 40%.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4517696-vaneck-social-sentiment-etf-dont-buy-into-the-buzz
"BUZZ tracks an Index of 75 large-cap growth stocks with positive online sentiment. Fees are 0.75% annually, and the ETF has $118 million in assets under management."
"BUZZ is an ETF you should avoid at all costs, and it gets one of my rare "strong sell" recommendations today." More important, Investors should learn to avoid... The Buzz
!925: The investing world discovers retained earnings.
That "discovery" is akin to the investing world's discovery of "dividend growth investing" that may have been driven by Edgar Lawrence Smith's 1924 book, "Common Stocks as Long Term Investments."
Smith's little book introduced the then-radical notion that a portfolio of common stocks outperform bonds over the long term, and were thus LESS risky than bonds. The book came into prominence when John Maynard Keynes reviewed it favorably in 1925. Keynes emphasized the role of "retained earnings" in the success of stocks over bonds.
Why did it take hundreds of years for the broad investing world to figure that out?
Keynes Reviews “Common Stocks as Long Term Investments.”
https://novelinvestor.com/keynes-reviews-common-stocks-as-long-term-investments/
"Exchange-Traded Notes: The Facts and the Risks"
"Key Points
* Exchange-traded notes (ETNs) are not exchange-traded funds (ETFs)
* ETNs have characteristics and risks which are different from ETFs
* ETN risks may be increasing for investors due to changes in the regulatory environment for issuers"
[much more on this important subject...]
https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/exchange-traded-notes-the-facts-and-the-risks
Gibson's stock market wisdom from 1923. Little has_changed.
"Gibson recalls a study he did on 4,000 brokerage accounts. About 500 of those accounts were in a single stock — US Steel — covering 12 months. The stock price was the same at the beginning and end of the period, with a difference between high and low price of 16 points. The following things stood out:..."
https://novelinvestor.com/notes/the-facts-about-speculation-by-thomas-gibson/
Even in 1906 charting was considered nonsense.
From Google Books
"The Pitfalls of Speculation"
By Thomas Gibson · 1906
See pages 86, 87, 88, 108
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/uysxAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
"Who invented the index fund? A brief (true)_history of index funds"
"Pop quiz! If I asked you, “Who invented the index fund?” what would your answer be? I'll bet most of you don't know and don't care. But those who do care would probably answer, “John Bogle, founder of The Vanguard Group.” And that's what I would have answered too until a few weeks ago.
But, it turns out, this answer is false.
Yes, Bogle founded the first publicly-available index fund. And yes, Bogle is responsible for popularizing and promoting index funds as the “common sense” investment answer for the average person. For this, he deserves much praise.
But Bogle did not invent index funds. In fact, for a long time he was opposed to the very idea of them!..."
https://www.getrichslowly.org/history-of-index-funds/
"The Law of Holes" goes back at least to 1911.
"the law of holes, is an adage which states: "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".[1][2][3][4] Digging a hole makes it deeper and therefore harder to get out of, which is used as a metaphor that when in an untenable position, it is best to stop making the situation worse.[5][6][7] More generally, it advises how one should solve problems of their own making.
The adage has been attributed to a number of sources. It appeared in print on page six of The Washington Post dated 25 October 1911, in the form: "Nor would a wise man, seeing that he was in a hole, go to work and blindly dig it deeper..."[9][10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_holes
Great quote: "The Best Investing Advice Has Always Been Too Boring for TV"
"... No one would be excited to watch a business-news show or to buy a financial magazine that continually reminded them to simply invest in low-fee index funds. No advertiser is excited about it, either—who would want to advertise stock-market newsletters, commodity futures, or actively-managed mutual funds on programs that constantly remind viewers that these goods and services should be shunned?"
Remember Louis Rukeyser [read on] ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/best-investing-advice-boring/423054/
Tidy Three-Minute Video on GAAP vs. Non-GAAP accounting. Toward the end it becomes something of an ad for Seeking Alpha's Premium (i.e. more costly) membership, but video is still great info for investors without accounting background.
"Munger: Berkshire Turnover has Been 'Way Too Much'
"I thought this was interesting because Warren Buffett (Trades, Portfolio) has consistently promoted the idea that investors should buy securities to hold them forever. However, selling such a large amount of stock throughout the year suggested that the Oracle of Omaha had an unusually high turnover rate in 2020.
It seemed that Buffett had been more active than usual for the past few years. In 2019, Berkshire acquired $18.6 billion of equity securities and sold $14.4 billion. In 2018, the group spent $43.2 billion buying equity securities and received $18.8 billion from sales.
Higher level of turnover
Last weekend, at Berkshire's annual meeting, one investor asked Buffett if his buy-and-hold philosophy had changed considering the "greater turnover in the equity portfolio lately."
Buffett initially started his response with a simple statement, declaring, "I don't think there's that much turnover." His right-hand man, Charlie Munger (Trades, Portfolio), clearly disagreed. He said, "There's way too much."
Even though Buffett had initially said that he didn't believe there was too much turnover in the portfolio, he agreed with Munger's statement. The CEO of Berkshire added:..."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/charlie-munger-berkshire-hathaways-turnover-164724000.html
Even the smartest investors get this wrong:
---
"Selling Winners And Holding Losers - Even The Smartest Investors Get It Wrong
The study of how human instinct impacts on investment decisions is hotly debated and sometimes controversial. But even Ben Graham, the father of value investing, was aware of the potential for investors to err. He famously warned that "the investor's chief problem - and even his worst enemy - is likely to be himself."
One of the best known behavioural trap-doors is to hang onto losing investments for too long and sell winning positions too soon. It's a phenomenon known as the Disposition Effect. For years, researchers have warned that investors can damage returns by cutting winners and riding losers. Often, this warning has been pitched in the direction of relatively unsophisticated retail investors. But new research suggests that the same behavioural flaw exists in some of the market's smartest and best-informed traders - Short Sellers.
It serves as a reminder that the risk of succumbing to selling the wrong positions is something every investor needs to be aware of. So here's a review of how things can go wrong and why smart investors are susceptible too.
"Some of the best research into the consequences of all this was done by [Berkeley Professor] Terrance Odean, who waded through 10,000 accounts held at an American discount broker between 1987 and 1993. He found a clear tendency for investors to sell winning positions over losing positions. Moreover, there was no good reason for it - there was no evidence that these investors were deliberately rebalancing their portfolios. On average, after one year, the losing stock, that was held, fell by 1.0% against the market. While the winning stock, that was sold, actually gained 2.4% above the market."
https://seekingalpha.com/article/3716166-selling-winners-and-holding-losers-even-smartest-investors-get-wrong
Only so much gain per year is possible. The growth rate of the economy is a major limiting factor. Anyone who beats the S&P most years is among the elite investors on the planet.
"90 years ago he showed stock forecasting was BS"
When I was just a teenager, someone asked me what I wanted to do or be when I grew up......... my brain was not ready then but maybe it would be like , "I want to be like this poster", as captured from actual data derived from IHUB live documented posts, an unusual forecasting return for less than 20 trading days in Jan, 2021:
-- --https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=161988589
Notable the worst performer, of the 20 stocks more than doubled a couple of weeks later, in Feb.
90 years ago he showed stock forecasting was BS:
--
"Born in Chicago in 1891 and educated at Yale, Cowles became a successful businessman. But his true passions were economics and statistics. One question in particular exercised his mind — is it possible to beat the stock market? — and in 1927 he set out to find the answer.
Over a period of four-and-a-half years, Cowles collected information on the equity investments made by the big financial institutions of the day as well as on the recommendations of market forecasters in the media. There were no index funds at the time, but he compared the performance of both the professionals and the forecasters with the returns delivered by the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
His findings were published in 1933 in the journal Econometrica, in a paper entitled Can Stock Market Forecasters Forecast? The financial institutions, he found, produced returns that were 1.20% a year worse than the DJIA; the media forecasters trailed the index by a massive 4% a year.
“A review of these tests,” he concluded, “indicates that the most successful records are little, if any, better than what might be expected to result from pure chance.”
https://www.evidenceinvestor.com/cowles-forecasters-cant-forecast/
"GameStop: An Example Of Why Buffett Stopped Short Selling"
"Summary
* GameStop stock been the craziest trade of 2021, with shares surging to more than $220 after hours as of my writing this.
* Depending on whether they sell into the short squeeze, this may be one of the largest redistributions of wealth from Wall Street to retail momentum traders and corporate management in history.
* Wisdom from Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger about short selling.
"It just isn't worth it to have that much irritation in your life."
- Charlie Munger, on short-selling speculative stocks, Berkshire Hathaway 2001 annual meeting."
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4401299-gamestop-stock-example-of-why-buffett-stopped-short-selling
Make 20% on Monday; make 20% on Tuesday; make 20% on Wednesday; make 20% on Thursday. And lose it all on Friday!
You tell yourself you're a winner 4 out of 5 days.
I remember when bottom rung Nasdaq junk vaporized in 2000-2001.
Rarely discussed: "High Dividend Yield Stock Scams"
"It is easy for investors to be lured by stocks with tantalizingly high dividend yields. Running a stock screen could produce multiple high-yielders that look great on the surface, but later turn out to burn investors with dividend cuts.
"To be sure, these are not companies operating fraudulent business models. Instead, these are stocks that are “scams” in that they look appealing on the surface due to their high dividend yields, but are actually quite risky because their dividends are unsustainable."
Red Flag #1: Dividend Yield Exceeds 10%
Red Flag #2: Excessive Debt Burden
Red Flag #3: Dividend Payout Ratio Above 100%
https://www.lazymanandmoney.com/how-to-avoid-high-dividend-yield-stock-scams/
"Most stocks are flops: just 1% of stocks account for all market gains Picking the handful of stocks that deliver the bulk of investor returns is seeking a needle in a haystack"
"Most stocks will cost you money. An even larger number make for lousy bets; instead of being rewarded for taking some risk, you’d likely be better off buying risk-free bonds. At least, that’s the case in the US, said University of Arizona finance professor Hendrik Bessembinder in 2017, following a groundbreaking study examining the performance of almost 26,000 US stocks over a 90-year period.
It turns out this is not a US phenomenon. In fact, results are even worse outside America, according to a new Bessembinder study; all over the world, most stocks end up being money-losing investments. It sounds counterintuitive, given that stock markets have historically delivered the goods for long-term investors. However, Bessembinder’s latest study, Do Global Stocks Outperform US Treasury Bills? – which examines the performance of more than 61,000 global stocks between 1990 and 2018–
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/most-stocks-are-flops-just-1-of-stocks-account-for-all-market-gains-1.3973200
Just asked this on another board but I’ll take guru help if I can get it. I am trying to do 2 things. The first I’m looking to download all data for all otc listings. I know otc has the stock screener that allows you download in xls but it does not include any volume data. Does otc have an api I can query? If not is there any other resources I can bulk download volume data?
Question 2 is is there a place to find information on all companies who have applied but not yet listed on otc market?
LOLOL! “Only thing we know for certain about_technical_analysis is that it’s possible to make a living publishing a newsletter on the subject.”
"While technical analysis remains widely used, that doesn’t mean it’s not bunkum. Indeed, many technical traders would be the first to accept that the field is full of charlatans. As bond expert and author Martin Fridson has written: “The only thing we know for certain about technical analysis is that it’s possible to make a living publishing a newsletter on the subject.”
Such newsletters are full of references to obscure Japanese candlestick chart patterns, Elliott Wave theory, Fibonacci numbers, and all kinds of other vague and unverified assertions.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/charting-the-stock-markets-does-technical-analysis-work-1.3148453
"Investing anti-vaxers." Why most locals fail.
1) Betting on businesses, rather than investing in them.
2) Falling in love with one or two stocks and failing to admit mistakes.
3) Swinging for homers with every investment.
4) Failing to understand the lifetime benefit of slow, steady growth.
5) Following obvious stockboard shills or self-exposed gurus.
6) Ignoring the "science" of investing. Investing anti-vaxers!
7) Trading too often. Low turnover almost always boosts success.
8) Following worthless hunches and whims. Emotions are idiots!
9) Piling into fads, usually near the top.
10) Buying "ground floor opportunities." Pros usually shun startups.
11) Ignoring protective devices such as audits, exchange listings.
12) Committing the arrogance of thinking they can outsmart Mister Market.
Simplest accounting/footnote nugget:
"In 1992, only 31 companies in the Standard and Poor's (S&P) 500 reported a one-time charge. By 1999, more than half had taken at least one special charge. By the end of 2002, only 58 companies in the S&P 500 index did not announce any special charges, according to Thomson Financial/Baseline."
For 20+ years I've warned about recurring one-time special charges [LOLOL!], a staple of red flag stocks.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/569321-book-review-financial-fine-print
More Proof: "You can't Day Trade For A Living."
"Abstract
We show that it is virtually impossible for individuals to day trade for a living, contrary to what course providers claim. We observe all individuals who began to day trade between 2013 and 2015 in the Brazilian equity futures market, the third in terms of volume in the world. We find that 97% of all individuals who persisted for more than 300 days lost money. Only 1.1% earned more than the Brazilian minimum wage and only 0.5% earned more than the initial salary of a bank teller — all with great risk."
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3423101
On Cult Stocks: A list I put together years ago
1) Investors buy and never sell.
2) Failures presented as opportunities to buy more.
3) Defectors face attacks, ostracism
4) Shareholders seek group approval. Board "leaders."
5) Traditional investing requirements don't apply. e.g. timely audits. clarity
6) Huge % of investors' funds tied up in the cult stock.
7) Sensible diversification or tax loss selling never discussed.
8) Desire to meet other cult members. Huge turnout at SH meetings.
9) Groupthink. "Them Versus Us." Siege mentality.
10) Doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
11) Often said: "If no one sells, the stock can only rise"
12) Affinity investors. SHs encouraged to recruit others into Group
13) Ultimately there may be SH bankruptcies, even suicides
Two red flag phrases often encountered with cult stocks:
"Long and Strong"
"Stay the Course"
What's wrong with cult stocks? For one thing, they're usually overpriced and therefore poor investments. Economic reality trumps fantasy in the long run. The end is usually an utter collapse.
Q. Should I buy dividend paying stocks?
A. Yes, but with this advice:
Buy high yield stocks but not the very highest yielders. This information about high yield investing and its limits should be of interest to all investors. See section 3 below.
Conclusions
In the preceding pages, we examined a number of papers and empirical studies from academics, economists and investment professionals that analyzed the relationship between dividend yield and investment returns over time. The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Over the 101-year period from 1900-2000, one study demonstrated that an investment in a marketoriented equity portfolio in both the U.S. and the U.K. that included, most importantly, reinvested dividends, would have produced nearly 85 times the wealth generated by the same portfolio relying solely on capital gains.
2. There is substantial empirical evidence to support a direct correlation between high dividend yields and attractive total returns.
3. Three of the studies found that the best returns were not produced by the highest yielding decile or quintile, but rather by the next highest yielding one or two deciles, or the next highest yielding quintile.
4. At least one study demonstrated that the returns associated with market-beating high dividend yield stocks were also less volatile in terms of the standard deviation of returns.
5. In several of the studies, high dividend yield stocks also sold at low ratios of price-to-book value and/or price-to-earnings.
6. The return advantages of high dividend yield stocks held for equity securities in both the U.S. and
internationally.
7. At least one study found that high dividend yield stocks outperformed other value strategies as well as the overall stock market return in declining markets.
8. The reinvestment of dividends from high-yield stocks can dramatically shorten the time necessary to recoup losses in declining markets.
https://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/papers/HighDivStudyFUND2014Web.pdf
A favorite stock truism: “Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in corrections themselves.” – Peter Lynch.
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2014/08/peter-lynch-stock-market-losses/
When you look at the trades, why are they red, green and black? What does the colors mean?
Not sure I understand. Do you have some penny stock certificates you want to deposit with a brokerage house for sale later?
Any recommendations on a broker that can deposit and clear sub penny stocks?
Q. Is shorting unscrupulous? There's nothing unscrupulous about shorting unless one tries to sabotage the company. Shorting myths are cover ups often advanced by sleazy promoters to explain why their scammy products fail. None of the respected investing classics I've read refer to shorters as wicked or evil, though most stress that shorting is risky because potential losses are infinite.
Nowadays almost no hedge funds short because they know it kills investment performance. Real stocks (aside from pennies) usually rise and they often pay dividends that the shorter must pay.
Buffett has often been asked about shorting. During the Great Recession I heard a TV interviewer ask Buffett whether shorting was a danger to the financial system: He said, "I love it when people short Berkshire Hathaway or companies we own. We get a fee for lending the stock and a guaranteed buyer has just been created."
I've never shorted. Buffett doesn't short. I've watched personal friends try it with disastrous results.
Q: Thoughts on taking profits? A:
The huge problem with "taking profits" is that stocks people sell tend to outperform stocks people buy. That's been shown on two well funded academic studies. Put another way: "The More You Sell The More You Lose."
There are sensible reasons to sell, but most IHUB type traders sell because of hunches, whims and silly charts. Huge costs to investing that way.
Good reasons to sell or trim a holding MIGHT include: To grab a tax loss or to prevent a soaring stock from becoming too dominate in a portfolio. but note that winners should generally be retained. I sell most losers quickly but I rarely have them.
Nauseating watching the "slobbering penny idiots" flipping Sears back and forth all day. On each flip the odds of success are about 48%; odds of failure are about 52%.
"The More One Trades The More One Loses."
Amazing how only penny players worry about market makers. For real investors, MMs/Specialists are invisible and innocuous. Like I often say, just about everything new penny players learn about investing is wrong.
Some of you are enthusiast because you enjoy cannabis recreationally, legal or not, and strongly believe the prohibition of cannabis is ridiculous and should be rescinded. Others of you are investment enthusiasts and are attracted to the explosive return-on-investment (ROI) opportunity. Some of you, like myself, are advocates for the industry because cannabis, in one shape of form or another, has medicinally helped someone you care about. And still others are enthusiastic about the multitude of benefits to our economy and the environment that can be realized through the legalization of hemp farming in the United States. We are imminently approaching a landmark event, not just in the history of cannabis, but in global economics. All factors seem to be aligned for the pending 2018 Farm Act to include the legalization of hemp farming.
Blah blah blah !!!! LOL bro. Damn ya got a bid head Bro!!! LOL hahaha!!!
A cerebral discussion: "Average Stock Market Returns Aren’t Average"
"Lady luck is a bitch, she takes from the many and gives to the few"
"The average investor in the stock market will earn less than the average stock market return–this is true even without taking into account any behavioral biases. A reasonably diversified portfolio of stocks can expect to earn 7% per year on average. Thus, it’s easy to see that the expected payoff from investing $100 and holding for 30 years is $100*(1.07)^30=$761.23. The expected payoff, however, is subject to a lot of uncertainty–even on a diversified portfolio the standard deviation is about 20% annually. Many people think that uncertainty washes out when you buy and hold for a long period of time. Not so, that is the fallacy of time diversification. Although the average return becomes more certain with more periods you don’t get the average return you get the total payoff and that becomes more uncertain with more periods."
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/07/average-stock-market-returns-arent-average.html
I was on the internet in the 1990s when hoardes of newbie investors arrived along with the Dot Com Bubble. Prior to then, few people bought stocks because investors had to go thru stuffy high priced brokers who were't welcoming to the masses. No one flipped stocks because commissions were high, and tax avoidance was a key concern.
Those stuffy "downtown" brokers at least served as gatekeepers protecting rookies from making the dumbest mistakes. Almost no one "played" pennies, prior to the 90s except for slobbering gambling addicts.
Everything changed with online investing... just in time for those newbies to be crushed by the Dot Com Collapse in 2000. Many lost everything, homes, marriages. There were suicides. Some groups like Raging Bull and Silicon Investor soon vanished. Only IHUB survived. And it depends on MJ and to a lesser extent crypto to stay in business. The worst thing has happened on IHUB... Investors have learned to do better. Doing better doesn't include penny stocks!
Beats me what the attraction of RNVA is even for a penny speculator. With its two money gulping hospitals and RNVA's long history of reverse splits, quick failure is pretty certain. Craziest question for me is why IHUBers are actually attracted to stocks like RNVA. And not only in Pennyland. Why the heck do players swarm around Greek shipping firms with long RS histories? Guess it has something to do with the longshot chance of a huge payoff (which never arrives)
Anyway it's the same old story. Gamblers who keep on losing. The few who claim to be "masters of making money in the sewers" are liars or shills.
As for learning how to make real money in the stock market... almost no one here cares about that. Sensible investing is way too slow for the masses. Even Warren Buffett has talked about that.
I wholeheartedly respect and agree with what you say. "Almost everything people learn from IHUB about investing is wrong."
It is unfortunate, but the way things happen when you are exposed to a very misinformed cliff note style of message board in IHUB, hoping the education one is receiving is sound, true and tested.
Rnva was and still is hot garbage. I have been lucky enough with a few, but that was because I was in and out of them. I don't believe that any of these companies are investment grade material. They all work out to be scams, some better played then others, but end of day, still garbage.
I have been wondering if there was a tool to see if a stock is being accumulated in the penny stock side of things. Currently was in one in the golfing sector. I am not promoting this at all but if you want to take a glimpse of what I am talking about it is DSGT. Company talking about an investment banker and securing millions for operations lol. So I go to take a look and they are relentlessly diluting the outstanding, they said it is due to a restructuring.... okay? I will bite, supposedly they are just dumping millions and millions of shares while floating the idea of reverse split. I take a look at the accumulation/distribution because at the level of selling they should have already been at .0001. Currently trading around .0007. With previously recent spikes.
In your experience a company slowly dumps in orDer to not cause panic? Or do they just dump into the market without care to share price? Or is this dump typically worked out between the note holders in order to best sell their shares?
Almost everything people learn from IHUB about investing is wrong.
I've been investing since I was age 19; I'm a retired lawyer and I've read most of the classic investing books. I follow just about everything Buffett and his partner Charlie Munger have written. I especially read academic research on investing. My own money is in low cost index funds, about 15 blue chips, and bonds. I have no doubt I've done better than 98% of IHUBBers.
Yes, it's hilarious that some advance the idea that a collapsing stock, like Rennova with its two worthless hospitals, can be "under accumulation". Or that a stock falls despite more people buying than selling. (although that can happen if a few shareholders are selling large blocks while many people are buying tiny amounts). Just about everything you read on IHUB about "evil MMs" and "wicked shorters" is wrong, and is usually aimed at diverting attention from the fact that virtually all hot, pumped OTC pennies are scams.
How have your penny stocks worked out for you?
Interesting, well that makes sense then on the variable in the numbers. So there is no real true way to find out if something is truly being accumulated or sold for a time period then?
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |
Subscribe to Ad free and enjoy an ad-free experience
Try Now
Keep the Ads