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.
LOL. So we heard in December that "it was over" for WOLV. We have surely seen that blown away over the last few weeks. It hit 1150% off its low, and 400% up from where it had been trading normally. So much for those forecasts, LOL.
Mostly selling, lol, lol. I hear ya. Stock is up 200% from 3 weeks ago, and up 700% from its lows. Mostly selling.....funny
You see this is up 600% off it's 52wk low, huh? I know I remember reading how this one was "dead" months ago, LMAO.
I think most people who understand the situation aren't concerned with him selling a tiny amount of shares. I've only read a couple of posts expressing concern, lol.
Odd. We continuously hear about 300, 400, 800 thousand shares being tiny volume, then make a big deal about an insider selling 140K, LMAO. That's one of the funniest things I've ever read.
Over 100% gain on a stock where it was claimed "game over", lol. Lots of talk on this penny stock.
Sorry, you can't justify that. The "party is over" claim was made months ago. "Party is over" means exactly that, and increasing over 100% is the complete opposite, lol.
How does that happen? The stock is up 130% 10 weeks after;
No, I said I could care less where it is now. The bounces were good while they lasted. All I ever disagreed with were forecasts and timelines which proved to be inaccurate, lol. Then, the forecasters attempted to legitimize their forecasts by claiming they were "close".
Not seeing your point, and that wasn't a good post to quote. At the time of that post, I was 100% accurate. A claim was made about the stock dropping under .06 very soon. Months down the road, it hadn't dropped as claimed, lol. So, then the claim was made of how it was "close" to .06. Still though, it never went under .06 at that time. Again, bad quote on that one. I could give two shxxs about where it is now. I never said it wasn't going to .0000.
Next time you quote, actually respond to that post, so posters can see what's being responded to.
Damn, and people are still even talking about this one, damn. REALLY!!!
I never said it wouldn't go under .20. Others may have. This is at .00005 now? Wow, and folks are still posting here and REALLY talking about it. Damn, I have better ways to spend time. It was okay for a few bounces, but no one is trading this anymore. Damn, and folks are REALLY still talking about it.
I guess with this uptick, the fat lady must have returned.
All companies have different ways of doing things to save. Seems Apple is aware of Nevada savings, lmao.
How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html
Oh....I just asked cause it sounded so confident before, lol, with the DD and all.
Sounds like no details. We talk about DD, but then.........
Very vague???? Can you provide any more detail? It doesn't even sound applicable to what we were discussing?
Can't believe we continue to vaguely suggest regulation, claiming applicability, but can't explain the actual applicability when asked....LOL. Very telling.
Really? What part isn't true? Can you explain any further? What you quote doesn't appear to be applicable to what we were talking about????
Huh....You said the CEO lied about purchasing shares!!!!!
You said;
Yeah, I sure am curious. Would like to see some examples of it for sure. Seems to imply LTNC is doing it, so I'd like examples to compare against their financials.
The point if the initial conversation was just trying to keep the facts out there. Sorry the net loss YoY wasn't 20 times. I know 4 times doesn't sound nearly as bad as 20 times, when talking losses.
No loss is good. Just trying to keep the facts straight. We don't want false info out there, do we?
Just trying to keep the facts straight. We don't want false info out there, do we?
The loss increased 4 times, so when the claim goes out that the loss increased 20 times, and the 20 times claim is used in an attempt to back up a statement of losses increasing "huge" and "massively". There's a need to bring out the facts. On the negative side, 20 times sure sounds much worse than 4 times, and I can see why it was used.
Just trying to keep the facts straight. We don't want false info out there, do we? I mean, when talking losses, 20 times sounds far worse than the honest number of 4 times. Right?
We continue to hear about massive net loss increases, as revs increase. The 100k loss was used purposely in an attempt to claim losses are 20 times higher in 2013. Just exempting the facts straight. It's no where near 20 times.