is…out the door and not looking back…
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.
Agree 100%. Not even close.
Who said LQMT has "bargaining power"?
I know, I know, but fiction is so much more interesting than the truth.
Very possible. Just trying to stick to facts when it's being said Eon has access to all ip already. Not only is it speculation but it's false
Nah, he has no access now until he COMPLETELY funds. Read it. He'd have the rug pulled out if he can't complete funding. Not what they want. He can't start production then lose rights to produce.
Here are the facts. Lugee himself wrote the letter asking for more time. LQMT did not write a letter giving him more time. The bold sections they refer to are related to loss of ip rights and loss of board member appointments but agreed fiction is much more interesting. Just tough to say if Lugee will get clearance.
I think Ottis ate it.
You need to refer to the Amendment. It says if funding doesn't come through Eon loses rights to IP and board appointments. So there is no way Eon has access because if Eon has access now but doesnt fund then he loses access to IP. If he wants the Crucible IP he has to fund. I still question if he'll fund but he's in this to make money either on sale of LQMT stock and-or to gain access to Crucible IP. If he doesn't fund LQMT can buy back By 12-31-17 at what he paid and he looses right to IP access. It would be stupid to give him access now him not to fund and thrn he loses access again. I'd guess he doesn't have access yet. Who know if he'll just walk away though?
New agreement references back to old but if he doesn't fund he loses IP right and right to appoint board members.
I'm up 91% at the close and it hasn't even closed yet!!!
No it was up a whole 0.86%
Thank you. And that's after the 10 for 1 reverse split...
Pencil me in at .004. Steipp is a mealy-mouthed obfuscator. Stay thirsty my friends. Long hot dry rest of summer.
Haha, thanks! And it's further useless because basing investment success or failure in a stock because of naked shorters???
Bottom line, LQMT gotta either get the deal done or make some money. All this other "stuff" - "naked short reports," "Eontec's stock performance" - that stuffs just pointless noise!
Agreed. That "naked short" link is highly, highly questionable.
Wrong and I proved it - with facts, not speculation or opinion.
Why would they cover at .12? Come on! This is implying they were able to time it that perfectly, that they knew it wasn't going LOWER and that they should cover now? So basically, they sold off shares at .16 (that they didn't own or didn't borrow on - since that's a "naked short" link - and I seriously question it's accuracy - either way - increases OR decreases) and covered now? If they covered now, that now means they're expecting an INCREASE. Why wouldn't they wait if they thought it was going LOWER?
All this is telling me is that the "naked short" link is likely inaccurate. Type in some of the penny stocks from the ihub top 10 - pennies only - and you'll find 99% short percentages. 99%! 99% of trading in pumped stocks are short??? LQMT isn't that high or low, but it makes zero sense and it makes zero sense that any "player" would perfectly time a short cover from .166 down to .1285 on 700,000 shares of volume, not even counting regular buys and sells. What did they make 4-8k, at most? They'll either ride it further down or there is no way they'd be able to say "OK I'll cover now because this isn't going lower." To say they're covering now for that kind of money, risk and no expectation of a downside is false and counterintuitive to a short's mindset.
It's wrong. Completely false and I proved it.
Plug in any penny on ihub top 10 into that naked short link and they will show up 80-90% short if not higher. Either that link is inaccurate or the LQMT short percentages are equal to or less than the norm.
That link is as useless as pointing out decreases in short percentages or Eon's up or down in stock price. It's meaningless bunk.