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.
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.
Unhealthy thought. Short sellers are trying to make money the same way you are- its just they think a stock is going in the other direction.
It is only unusual here, I promise.
This stock following is unlike any I have ever seen. I get a sense people don't care about the money, they care about being right about this company. They'd almost prefer to be alone on an island with no money and no one to tell them they could be wrong.
No it IS correct, as you could have increased your position at no additional cost if you understood what was going to happen, rather than holding and sustaining losses as a badge of honor out of loyalty to a non-living entity.
I know my thoughts are generally not welcome. And I SINCERELY hope people make money, here and everywhere. But watching this is painful. There are some great thoughts on opportunity to make money here and I don't fault some attempts. But the "always hold, always positive" when CLEARLY that will cause losses is hard to watch.
This is a very unsophisticated approach. It could work someday, but it ignores so many things that the company and market are telling you in the near term.
The recent drop in the price was entirely predictable:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=156625470
While I am really stumped on the recent volume, the recent drop is simple: your shares now own less of the company. They have manufactured a market cap of ~40M now and the market valued it in the mid 30s prior to the raise, so now it is meandering back to the market accepted value.
Obviously new information can change that, but it remains that your "hold at all costs" approach has cost you value whether this turns around or not.
Resiliency to what?
There was a deposit on the 4.3m, meaning it was not itself a deposit.
All the assets of value were sold. There is no wiggle room to “interpret” that the assets sold for 4.3m, leaving behind 500m+ worth of “formula” to escape the bankruptcy court.
You’re reaching. It’s over.
It was a goal. Monitor reports 1, 2, 3, 4, then SISP failed, so it became a liquidation.
The bankruptcy proceedings have been closed.
Sounds like a VERY painful approach to disregard the many official statements that there will be no recovery beyond small amounts to secured creditors while awaiting a document that you've been told many times may never come or be severely delayed since there is no board or employees.
This is always my question: is it secret or not? If it’s secret, that means no one can share the information ahead of its official announcement to the public with all of the terms so that everyone has uniform information to make investment decisions- not customer service at TDA or any of the patent sites. I can’t believe anyone would think that sleuthing around for “DD” is even a good idea, like the authorities have made sure their are clues for their discovery And enrichment instead of proper reporting.
So you just asked the question so you could state that the answer is opinion again.
It isn't. It remains in several places though and those are re-presented on this board, cycled every few days or so.
Nope. No one left to wind it up.
Here is the documentation liquidating th company.
https://www.pwc.com/ca/en/car/bioamber/assets2/bioamber-043_120718.pdf
The monitor allegedly said that and then later signed a document that 2 judges approved that said that’s not what happened. Asking point blank: why do you believe the GFive lawyer over the signed and approved APA?
Can’t let these sit. I would have sworn on a stack of bibles before the uplist that this would drop precipitously and i didn’t communicate it enough.
The most important aspect of investing outside of all the quantifiable stuff and ability to spot trends is being objective. The glaring problem with what you offer below it provides an excuse in place of growth.
Unhealthy thought. While becoming successful and wealthy are hard, and sacrifice and pain are often necessary, it does not follow that seeking it and enduring it as an investor will result in anything positive. The best investments most often do not require patience in the face of giant drops.
What is the documentation that says the company hasn’t been liquidated? I’ve never seen any of that. I thought the idea was that it was liquidated but the shares will still be bought. Who has ever tried to demonstrate it wasn’t liquidated?
Sounds like the protection they sought (and was granted) was urgent.
So why the snippets, etc?
Reiterating and proving over and over that a liquidated company is a liquidated company is a conflict of interest? How?
Weren't really insolvent but sought (and was granted) protection. Thats quite the fraud accusation.
Its just so bizarre that to resolve any perceived inconsistencies, someone wouldnt just consult the signed APA in the Monitor's reports. Thats what they're for. And the judge's oversight is installed to make sure all is crystal clear and in the best interest of all in order of legal priority.
These guys are insisting its some free for all behind the scenes while on the outside the result is very simply and clearly set forth.
Looks like there is an inconsistency in what Gfive wrote that Mica told them and what was reported and approved by the judges.
Why would anyone continue to believe GFive over what was reported publicly and approved?
Unhealthy thought. Short sellers are not the problem.
Correct. It was actually known about a year prior when the APA was signed.
20 by EOY is extremely unlikely. 2 would be an appropriate goal given the headwinds.
This would be the same as saying “I really hope no one who bet big on the Chiefs in the Super Bowl last year has spent all their winnings in case the outcome of the game is overturned, the 49ers are announced the winners and they have to repay their winnings.”
There’s absolutely nothing going on.
Your hopes still remain at 0.000000%
2 weeks ago I called 2 weeks of nothing. Now I’m again calling 2 weeks of nothing. And forever after that.
No explanation necessary.
I didn’t think that statement should land without the commentary that that may be 1000x more than realistic in a crazy positive case for this company.
1000x more disruptive than a company worth 1.9B? That’s quite the hyperbole.
1000x more than 1.9B? That’s quite the hyperbole.
Because some idiot actually paid for a good standing report only to find out on the document nothings been heard from the company for 2 years.
So “they went out of there way to type” the 3 word transaction as a wink to you? Because there were no other details provided. Also, they issued the 10th report to beg you to believe otherwise. Were there winks in there too?
If you know of a searchable database of APAs involving 2 party JVs acquiring assets of a defunct company I’m sure there could be found examples of only one company in the JV being named. In this case it was because one company took the initiative with the first outreach and the other after affirmed.
I said they purchased the “vast majority of the Company’s physical assets and intellectual property” making it definitionally impossible for anything of value to remain with the liquidated company.
Not correct. The document makes it clear that the asset purchase involved the “vast majority of the companies physical assets and intellectual property.” Meaning anything else that could remain, by definition, would have a far smaller value than the value exchanged in the asset purchase.
Yes your opinion on the matter is clear. I hope it does.
Assuming this means the “held down” notion has now been discarded.
It hasn't convinced the market that it belongs in the peer class you are referencing. I am not to blame, and I am not someone to convince, I am simply noting what is currently true.
If it does do that, the price will appreciate.
But it remains that it is not being "held down".
Verb is not being “held back”. Unhealthy thought.