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.
I'm guessing it was a stop-limit order or some other automatic order. The ask was .081, a bid for 100k at .074 came in and was (mostly) filled in a few seconds.
That was 5000 shares, so they lost all of $20 plus commissions (since they could buy those 5000 back right now at .059).
I asked about that last week, only they were larger amounts so they didn't look like chart-painting. In either case, these sells come in before the higher GTC bids have a chance to "register" in the morning, so they are well below the "real" bid.
Why do we sometimes see selling first thing in the morning below GTC bids?
Forgive me if this is a naive question, but why does this happen? Sales sneak in during the first minute of trading before the GTCs have a chance to "show up". It seems unlikely that someone would put in a sell order below the previous day's closing bid and in all probability below what the bid will be one minute after the open. I would blame it on chart-painting, but the amounts, while small, seem a bit too big for that.
"While McPhail will offer training to local police officers, he also hopes two-day training courses will be accessible to community members, especially with a recent change in Wyoming law."
So apparently that would not violate the exclusivity agreement with GM. From the beginning I've been wondering exactly what that covers.
"If they are not in good standing in Texas, they are going no where."
Yeah, they'll probably all go to prison for this, or maybe pay a small fine.
Not enough shares offered, so I got skipped over.
There is at least one higher AON bid (mine), and could be more.
There's no other reason possible except a mistake. With an ask at .0915, it probably would have taken only a few minutes to sell that 100K without dropping the price. The .092 earlier today was snapped up very quickly, and that itself was an unnecessarily low ask.
Not unless they needed to get out in two minutes instead of ten minutes. Otherwise, they just threw away a few thousand dollars for no reason, or in an attempt to crash the price.
The gap is currently 33% of the last price.
"Also, looking at a level 2, even a few hundred thousand shares bought brings this up to a solid 10.5 or 11."
There's almost half a million on the ask at .1 and under. Of course, with announcement of a buyback that would evaporate.
Actually, I've been wondering why those relatively large sell orders have been sitting there lately. It's weird.
"which brings up the subject of why anyone holds a stock if they distrust the management"
Let me once more give the answer to that question: because they think the value is going to increase.
Similarly, if I trust management but expect the value of the stock to decrease, I won't buy it.
I agree they will probably make more from the
increased business drawn in, but the academies
should be profitable in themselves. With 4 sims
and 8 lanes and given the cost, if they book 3/4
of the time or so they should be able to net about
$3600 per day. If 1/3 of that is profit (not
including simulator costs), pay-back time would be
a little over two years. That may be optimistic,
but they should be better than cost-neutral in the
long run if they are in any way successful.
I think weeble's point was that someone sold 36K at the bid, .092, when there was almost a .8 cent gap and no trading on the low end before that. They could have asked .097 and it probably would have sold in a few hours at most. They basically threw away $180 for no reason (unless they really did need to sell immediately). I'm not complaining though, I bought that 36K.
Some didn't get out of the stock because of the potential for the R/S to pass, they got out because of the nature of the proxy itself, and the way the whole mess was handled.
It hurt confidence, obviously.
I had a GTC sell for 100K at .095 from weeks ago that I forgot all about and I slept in this morning. I'm glad we're only at .097 or I would really feel like crap.
The rest (other than 2) were not even close, I suspect.
Too late to take advantage of the bump, is my guess. I think we'll stay where we are now, high 8s to low 9s, until earnings, and volume will stay low so it will be hard to get in or out quickly. I hope I'm wrong though.
So if I don't vote with management they can say "See what you made me do"?
Are there investors and institutions that just short almost any stock with a pending R/S, as they do for biotechs approaching FDA decisions? If so, I'm guessing they would avoid VirTra anyway.
It doesn't have to be either of these. What's good for management is not necessarily what's good for the stockholders, and what's probably good for the company two years for now may be harmful to stockholders with a shorter time frame. Also, nobody has a crystal ball here, so "foolish" is a matter of opinion. I can strongly disagree with management decisions and still consider the stock a better-than-average investment.
Of course there can still be reasons to hold. You may think it is likely that management will fail in their aims. You may think that they will succeed and that it will hurt the share price, in that the price will still go up significantly, but not as much as it would have otherwise. It is quite common that most shareholders make a good profit after shenanigans by management, but still don't get what they feel they were due.
The postponement announcement doesn't say anything about previous votes being discarded. If this is really what's happening, then once again they are doing something that doesn't seem quite right.
If they've already voted, will they change their votes? They might if they think they can get back in lower after the R/S.
I think that makes you the first member of the reverse conspiracy group.
Tomorrow is Wednesday Mousketeers.
Who knows. Better for no-on-1 voters to vote yes on #2 just in case. Based on our survey, some people did answer no on #1 and no on #2 there, unless they just made that mistake on the survey and not the actual vote.
He wants #2 to pass if #1 does, as we all should. I think some people are still misunderstanding this, thinking that if you vote no on #1 your vote on #2 won't count, or something like that. There is no good reason to vote no on #2, no matter what your vote on #1 is. Anyone who has voted no on #2 should change their vote while there is still time.
If that is true then someone needs to record the call. I've already voted, so I suppose I won't get it.
Do you either have total faith in management or none at all? How can you be such an all-or-nothing person? My assessment of the risk is now higher than it was. My expectation of rewards is now lower than it was. I still feel it's a good bet. What's so hard to understand?
It's not a yes-no proposition. Every stock purchase is a bet based on formal or informal risk assessment, whether you call yourself trader or investor. I now think it is more likely that management is stupid (about certain things) or out to rip us off than I did before. I can believe that and still think the stock is a good bet at the current price, and still think we'd be better off without the R/S in some time frame that matters to me.
The survey shows that some are voting no on 1 and no on 2. Whether you are for or against 1, nobody should be voting no on 2. If 1 happens to pass and 2 fails, this would result in a huge number of authorized shares relative to the float.
I assume people have done this by mistake. If you have done this, you need to change your vote and fix it.
It would still impact the price, but it could be done a lot cheaper now than before, no? At least, they could save a few million dollars, maybe more.
I'm not sure why you highlighted "reverse stock split". This R/S isn't taking anyone out, unless they own less than seven bucks worth.
The bottom line is that it is either deceitful or foolish. It's hard to believe none involved realized how the package as a whole would look to investors.
Plus, one or a few investors got to find out before everyone else and dump in the low 9s, while by the time the rest of us found out for sure, it was down to 8 cents and dropping. That ain't kosher, is it?
Most of the buying was from me, and I don't know anything. I got out at .08 down to .075, and now I'm about half way back in, which is where I'll probably stay until after the vote.
Does the chair get the deciding vote on the board of directors? If so, is there any practical difference between one board member and two?
Just listened to the cc. The info on GM exclusivity was something I wasn't expecting. Though it is not entirely clear, it appears they are prohibited not only from selling to GM's direct competitors (Cabela's etc.), but also to shooting ranges in general, without licensing agreement from GM. That is a bit disappointing. An exception for the range simulator would be good, as I see GM as a huge advertisement for sales to shooting ranges.