Retired
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.
Where and when did you say that they DID file?
Credibility. Credibility is the urgency regardless of "not we already discussed" (sic). If they managed to put together years worth of omissions in order to stay alive, why is one lousy filing a problem at this point in the game? Perhaps that filing not stacking up very well? Inquiring minds wish to know. Just sayin'.
WE'RE GONNA BE LATE (again) filed two weeks ago. Any shred of credibility slipping. Pretty sketchy behavior when considering another 'meet and greet' with the judge is just around the corner. IMO, of course.
Growing up would be the first step. IMO
Random response to random post. lol.
Interested parities(sic) have over a decade of facts and anecdotal info on which to draw from. The truth is its own best defense.
Thanks for the response. Mostly bullshit but thanks anyway.
IMO, the lack of share structure differential will all come out in the wash at some point in the future.
I do believe you missed the poster's point.
Actually, truth be known, there isn't much of anything that has truly been "discussed" on this board. IMO, of course.
JARIP. Just Another Random Internet Post
Audited Fins nothing to be proud of. Touting garbage numbers is pure folly. Just sayin'.
"Wrong again."
"Wrong again."
Yes. When you said it's not. But that was then.
"So many opinions."
Why, who, what, when?
And we will see what she thinks on 1/15; not random internet inferences and opinions!!
And how, pray tell, was that clearly illogical diagnosis achieved?
So, what you're saying is that you've been 'successful' by totally ignoring the fact that an outfit has been around for over a decade and hasn't produced a dime in profit? And when you recommend an inquirer to 'do some DD' -- and refer that potential investor to your myriad of posts as an example of good DD, would it not be wise to post a proviso indicating that your information does not include profitability and, further, that you feel profitability an over-rated ingredient to investment success? It only seems right. Yes? Just askin'.
Yes, yes. We're all aware of your awesomeness. Hence, the query on profitability.
Hmmm. Parked here in negative triple ott territory for months on end is a WINNER? L M A O.
Musta been absent that day.
Ignoring the debt situation of an intended investment would not be in one's best interest. IMO, of course. Just sayin'.
DD should also include those "in the know". Yes? By sheer volume, one must certainly conclude that you are in the know. Thus, the query.
Don't recall discussing that. Refresh my memory.
Any mention of profitability? Did they meet their debt quota?
Awesome! And only a mere one year old! Talk about ancient history!
And getting sadder all the time.
See, now is the good IR lady was around, she could have solved that issue prior to its ever becoming one.
Even more worser!
That data cited is really old and the irrevelant. I mean, who actually thinks that the lack of past performance doesn't figure into the equation? IMO, no revocation = r/s within 6 months.
Yeah, huh? Not too appetizing a week thus far. Where is the IR lady when you want her?
Not hardly. IMO, of course.
Link please?
OMG! This one to be AUDITED? Holy crap! That changes everything! not
Someone reported that the 26th was going to be D-Day. Maybe it was the IR lady?
Not forget asher ever to. you funny
We any shade other than gray?