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.
Geez if the dilution and flippers are done (not sure if they are but if so) how are those wanting the price to drop going to get shares?
Longs are still for the most part long and willing to wait and moreover if they sold some off for tax loss selling purposes (as many under water) they've done selling.
Add to that, they may add once wash sale restrictions lift
So no sellers (if the above holds) and some old longs adding back
Hmm, how are those hoping for the stock to drop in order to add going to have he stock drop?
Shorting is financially prohibitive
No sellers en masse at least , maybe some stragglers
Curlous situation ahead!
Share price is supply and demand, if supply isn't coming to market what happens if people decide to buy? There certainly is no reason to sell as we wait for the CAFC.
I'm hearing they will authorize for 47000000 Trillion shares!
Ya sounds about right!
Please show me a post where I said "Never"- Let's ensure we use FACTS LOUIS
I said they wouldn't need to in the near term and at such point as they would need more financing the share price would have increased materially minizing the effect because we'd be at District Court.
Clearly there was an implicit assumption based on COURT FILINGS THAT BOTH SIDES WOULD ACCEPT THE RULING THAT WE'D GO TO DISTRICT NOT THE CAFC. If we had gone to DC no need for financing would have occurred.
My logic is / was sound yours was not.
Clearly kidrins choice to go the CAFC has changed that and was NOT YOUR ARGUMENT
Can you clarify this for the board Louis!?
http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/volumes/452/452mass1012.html
Clearly we all assumed they would go to District Court Louis
Moreover you never stated the following :
That the reason they would need to raise more money would be to pay for ptab appeals at the CAFC. Indeed your argument at that time on dilution was incorrect as your commentary suggested Susman needed to be paid.
Again, incorrect facts leading to a correct answer isn't something to "brag about"
That's nice, it won't apply here. Who are the sellers? The long term holders who've just bought more?
I won't repeat my points on the specifics related to WDDD and the RS since I have thoroughly articulated them in previous posts. Moreover, simply repeating the post of another that I have refuted numerous times is well, odd.
Inexperienced investors often make incorrect comparisons I get it, thus the reason i have thoroughly explained the issues in the posts below
I suggest you read my previous posts on the subject - links below
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127426648
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127427551
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127425266
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127425045
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RS IT HAS TO DO WITH IMPATIENT TRADERS / Investors and the time to the CAFC decisions
Your logic is incorrect - again for the last time;
1. Companies decline on RS due to shorting - proven highly unlikely here as stated prior
2. Companies Decline on RS due to shorting (if it happens see number 1) and anticipation of dilution. Traders and investors sell - again significant dilution is not applicable
3. A COMPLETELY UNRELATED ISSUE TO THE RS IS TIME TO A CATALYST / CAFC decision -could people sell bc of this? Sure but most likely already have. Those playing the pop to District Court bought prior and pushed the price, then dumped when it didn't happen. Long "investors" - many here, added.
As one can see from how the volume spiked after the CAFC PR and then subsequently decreased, those left for the most part are likely long term holders. Again, there may be few buyers - but if there are few sellers it's hard for the price to drop in half or worse as you claim
NUMBER THREE IS NOT CORRELATED TO THE RS - it is independent of the RS, time to the CAFC decision would have been an issue irrespective of the RS
The debate is about THIS stock declining on a RS based on WDDD facts and it's specific situation
I have provided rational fact based reasons that the typical drop on a RS wouldn't apply here and the counter was "it just does because other companies do and have". Interestingly, some companies have actually traded up on RSplits, so that argument is insufficient, especially since no factual information as to WHY it would trade down is provided:
Suggesting "it just does or it just will" when faced with the fact dilution of a material size won't occur, and shorting is financially prohibitive for people to undertake is illogical.
If I'm missing something please provide such insight
It's important for all investors to rely on correct logic based on facts to avoid making false comparisons
On VHC / VRNG CAFC decisions I had to show an self stated "group of patent experts" lol that the assumed basic premise of apparent risk was invalid; something a patent neophyte could have learned by simply reading the vhc rulings
Here; saying RS = share price down doesn't account for wddd specific FACTS and oversimplifies the issue based again on incorrect comparisons and assumptions . Yet that's all that's being said and my facts are not being refuted.
Facts of the each specific situation matter, and if I'm incorrect then;
A. Prove my facts incorrect with factual information.
B. Or provide and alternative explanation on how it would trade down to its current level absent those issues I raised if they are accepted
That is what debate is about. Not "I'm right because I think so based on different companies facing very different circumstances and situations".
Could it trade down sure it could, but not bc of dilution or shorting like other companies, therefore if that is the logic implicit in the comments made, which it seems to be- the logic is faulty.
Explain why stocks often trade down on RS, do you know the root causes? I explained it but yet again it's ignored and a basic "because it does" is a response given. I am happy to be proven wrong but give me an intellectually rational reason based on fact and logic
Causes of stocks trading down post RS
1. Shorting
2. Expectations of further Dilution (which is why people short)
So please explain how it will trade down if both of those don't apply
People who are long term holders are just going to up and sell?
Because that's the only way
It's amazing how many people don't look at actual facts
And your point is what?
I have already explained this issue as have others, again using logic and facts matters
1. Have enough cash to get through appeals
2. Minimal cash burn post that reverse
3. I shared an article showing the cost of carry and margin costs of shorting a stock priced this low (even after a RS) make it prohibitively expensive to short
Do the math then tell me what your point is because just saying RS doesn't say much to me or anyone who's a decent investor and knows what is occurring here
But sure I can repeat my posts 1000x for people who just keep ignoring all the information shared here already
Wealth of information on this board, suggest reading through
Lol!! Actually completely false.
Suggest reading my response to that post- the post you refer to is factually incorrect
here it is again for everyone's reference and I suggest everyone who has the capability of reading, read the rulings and notice the 100% material difference
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127408246
WE HAVE VALID CLAIMS -VHC DID NOT
80% of rulings by the ptab are validated by the CAFC
A minute % of valid claims are overturned by the CAFC
Applying basic logic shows that we :
A. We Don't have VHC risk
B. We have a fair chance of some invalid claims overturned if you read the second article I posted
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127412255
C. Extremely minimal chance of valid claims overturned
D. The only stat that matters risk wise is how many PTAB VALIDATED CLAIMS HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED
Basic Diligence, facts, and logic all matter in investing!
Interesting paragraph from the article I just posted that could benefit us. One of the key issues at play was the use and definition of the word avatar. Suggest all read how the ptab killed claims and argued against the specification and used a Microsoft dictionary meaning, then read the bolded area below.
"The Federal Circuit has also been known to slam the PTAB’s dictionary usage, in opinions where the court finds the PTAB has used an overly broad interpretation of a key term.
In a February ruling, for example, the Federal Circuit said the PTAB had improperly invalidated some claims of three PPC Broadband patents on coaxial cable technology challenged by Corning Optical. The appeals court said the board’s claim construction was incorrect because, while the board was required to give claims their “broadest reasonable interpretation,” the construction it used was not reasonable.
“The board seems to have arrived at its construction by referencing the dictionaries cited by the parties and simply selecting the broadest definition therein,” the court wrote. “While such an approach may result in the broadest definition, it does not necessarily result in the broadest reasonable definition in light of the specification.”
The Federal Circuit takes an eagle-eyed approach to claim constructions, attorneys say, and is extremely unlikely to let problematic ones escape its attention. And claim construction is, in many instances, an issue that the appeals court can reconsider afresh on appeal, making it an ideal route for appellants to pursue.
If an appellant can argue that the PTAB failed to properly ground its analysis in the express language of the claims, that could be a trigger for the Federal Circuit to jump in and take a closer look, attorneys say.
“It’s a symptom of the broader truism that often your best chance for reversal is where the court has the opportunity to look de novo at what the board did. The most common place where that can happen is claim construction,” Wright said.
We have claim construction from a markman misaligned with ptab construction
Think about that in light of this article, my previous post on the differences between us and VHC and VRNG
Can you post the article - most here don't have access to law360 or their free subscriptions expired!
And let's ensure the data talks about PTAB validated claims being overturned because that's the risk we are debating, not invalidated claims reversed since that's upside for us.
Thanks
Here's a good article on the upside of challenges at the CAFC and ptab overreach
http://www.skgf.com/uploads/1503/doc/4_Fights_The_Federal_Circuit_Picked_With_PTAB_This_Year_(Bell)_Law360.pdf
I am not saying our 6 claims are "guaranteed" but what I am saying is
1. The suggested examples of "concerns of Wallach and Mayer" are false comparisons of risk since there are important / material differences in the patents, precedents, recent changes in utilization of those precedents (two part Alice test), and most importantly the fact unlike the examples of "risk" cited, we have ptab / IPR validated claims going into the CAFC.
2. The PTAB is known to be more plaintiff friendly as their interpreting of claims is broader, so to get past them and have a group such as the CAFC now review those claims in a more restrictive fashion suggests quite clearly that once a claim is approved by the ptab seeing the CAFC overturn a valid claim is highly unlikely
3. For this reason I have repeatedly suggested to the board that the correct way to assess risk is not based on a boogeyman judge, but rather look at the percentage of PTAB validated (and Importantly via IPR) patents that have subsequently been killed by the CAFC - I bet it's extremely low
4. Thus, as I have said all along, brighter minds than those here (Susman) have assessed the risk of going to the CAFC vs District Court and chosen the route that maximizes value with consideration of risk.
5. Their (Susman) assessment would have included such data, an analysis of potential threats (nuclear or otherwise) and from their perspective the chances of losing claims is clearly pretty much zero, so at worst we likely only see upside if we get some rulings reversed.
6. Now I am not saying zero risk, I am saying the examples provided to suggest there is risk of losing existing claims is faulty logic based on the details of those cases (Alice rules have changed re VRNG; and as my previous post showed VHC issues were materially different from us as vhc DID NOT have valid claims reversed by the CAFC, but rather had IPR invalidated claims / rulings affirmed by the CAFC ).
7. As stated we have valid claims that must be overturned to lose. Quite suprised a "team of patent experts" wouldn't know such a basic difference.
THE RECENT VHC RULINGS AT THE CAFC DID NOT OVERTURN VALID CLAIMS
Links here
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1211.Opinion.12-7-2016.1.PDF
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1480.Opinion.12-7-2016.1.PDF
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1934.Opinion.12-8-2016.1.PDF
THEY (CAFC) DID NOT OVERTURN VALID CLAIMS THEY CONCURRED WITH PTAB FINDINGS ON INVALIDITY- THIS IS A MATERIAL ISSUE / DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO CASES
SO LETS USE FACTS FRIEND NOT UNRELATED CASES SUGGESTING THAT THE ISSUES ARE THE SAME AS THEY ARE 100% NOT THE SAME
WE HAVE PTAB VALIDATED CLAIMS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE OVERTURNED. VHC HAD PTAB KILLED CLAIMS AND PATENTS THEY WERE LOOKING TO REVERSE WITH NO VALID CLAIMS
THESE ARE TWO EXTREMELY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS
1. VRNG had its district court win overturned on Alice which has since been limited in its effectiveness to kill patents and reined in as stated
2. VHC had patents KILLLED AT THE PTAB AND THE RULING WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CAFC
IGNORING A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO CASE SUCH AS THAT FACT IS QUITE POOR DILIGENCE IN MY VIEW
AGAIN
1. We have ptab validated claims and want additional overturned - my whole argument has been based on the fact that the ptab is the high hurdle and we at least have some claims through, thus only upside left as the CAFC uses a more patent holder friendly claim construction. The counter argument which has now been proven faulty was Wallach is a software killer look what he did to vhc- well;
2. Vhc had no valid claims and wanted that reversed - that is not the same situation or even close to what we are facing
By logical conclusion ( as I said prior) find some stats on how many PTAB VALIDATED CLAIMS HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE CAFC
THE COMPARISON OF THE TWO CASES IS COMPLETELY BASELESS
I'm guessing those who sold at four to five cents are hoping to buy back at 1-1.5 cents
Gotta love the games in patent plays!
Good luck to all- full disclosure I have not sold a share and will add if it drops to those levels
I won't be "buying back in after I sold" and calling it "adding" to my position
Again,
VRNG occurred prior to numerous decisions that have since clarified and reigned in the reach of Alice arguments that were simply "say it and you win" - which is I agree what many did in the past
Happy to see actual similar cases with similar claims that were upheld at the ptab that were then reversed with tighter / more restrictive claim construction
I rely of facts, law, logic and precedent. Show me law, precedent that applies not "Wallace can do what he wants type arguments" . Such commentary is effectively "fear mongering" in my view.
Wallach can not do what he wants he needs to back it up with related precedent and new precedents show a two part test is now required - odd that I have yet to see debate arguing my logic on the 558.
And by no means am I saying it's not a risk, rather that such a risk is being over emphasized based on unrelated cases.
What happens to vhc has ZERO to do with WDDD - THE CASE FACTS / PATENTS AND THUS LAW AND MERITS ARE 100% different
I recall you said
If this see's .01 or .015 you'll see my SEC Form 13D.
Claims 5 and 7 of 558 below.
As one can see (and if you've read the arguments to the ptab) these claims are about addressing the bandwidth limitation of a client server process.
Moreover, it is not a simple calculation in that the system determines ("determining maximum number of avatars")what's in the "field of view" and then assess what should and should not be displayed BECAUSE OF BANDWIDTH LIMITATIONS . This clearly "improves the functionality" of the computer and indeed without this functionality bandwidth limitations would have prevented this entire industry from blossoming.
IMO These claims are MATERIAL AND will pass the 2 part Alice test.
Let's also not ignore the fact that WDDD is choosing to go to the CAFC. I am certain their legal counsel is aware of any Alice attempts here and clearly feel it's a hurdle they will pass. Their view is clearly that we are in no weaker of a position by taking this path, else logic dictates they would not choose it.
5. The machine-readable medium of claim 4, wherein step (d) comprises:
(d)(1) determining an actual number of avatars in the set associated said each client process based on the positions transmitted by the server process;
(d)(2) determining a maximum number of avatars that can be displayed to the user associated with said each client processes
(d)(3) comparing the actual number to the maximum number to determine which of the avatars are to be displayed.
7. The computer readable medium of claim 6, wherein step (d) comprises:
(d)(1) determining an actual number of avatars that are not associated with the client process based on the positions transmitted by the server process;
(d)(2) determining a maximum number of avatars that can be displayed; and
(d)(3) comparing the actual number to the maximum number to determine which of the avatars are to be displayed.
PP I don't deny your comments on the particular judge in question but absent an analysis on what MERITS that judge could cause a problem here is unfortunately nothing other than fear mongering and no offence intended but that's all it is.
1. Others have provided insight into Alice and key decisions from that ip article
2. One is welcome to read the claims and look at the two part test and realize that regardless of that judge's inclinations and anti software patent stance he literally cannot get around it
3. It is a three judge panel
4. Let's see stats on how many ptab APPROVED claims and been overturned in the past and on what grounds
5. If there a some I'd like to see how that relates to our claims
6. Susman is smarter than ANYONE here on this topic and they feel it's worth going to the CAFC
I'm sorry but until I see logic and articulate arguments that support how and why PTAB APPROVED claims would be killed in this particular case it's simple "conspiracyesque" type arguments.
Realize as well, since the VRNG \ FH debacle a lot of software cases have been ruled on that would have verified VRNGs patents- they got unlucky in timing. The argument Wallach and Mayer used (combination) wouldnt have stood the today and VRNG would have made a lot of people rich.
Moreover, as I explained in the previous post these patents pass the 2 part test: read the claims and the requirements in that article - they IMPROVE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF A COMPUTER - a key part of the two part Alice test
No need to create boogeymen that don't exist. Yes there is always risk but logic and law matter too
Thanks for reposting this was a very good article and helps explain what those who fear Alice need to understand
The ptab Validated claims were: Claims 4, 8, 13, and 16 of Patent 7,181,690 B1 - IPR2015-01268 and claims 5 and 7 of Patent 7,493,558 B2 - IPR2015-01269.
If you read the claims 5 and 7 of 558 you can easily assess how those claims "improve the functionality" of a computer and thus would pass the 2 stage Alice test
The other claims do so as well as without them the "computer game" would not operate as it's designed
Realize that the PTAB is the "higher and tougher" hurdle for software holders to get past given the broader claim construction (ie easier for plaintiffs as the AIA was designed by big tech to kill patents, they couldn't kill ours - that means something) . I think the reality of this is lost by some or perhaps not understood.
I believe the recent activity is clearly penny flippers getting out, some panickers and tax loss selling combined, and the exercised warrants. Fundamentally we are in no worse position than when we were at six cents and undervalued, it's simply the schedule has been stretched out and impatience took over for some.
A reminder that the CAFC is aligned with the District Court on claim construction (Phillips) and as such other claims are likely to be added to our case in my view (given what we saw in the markman order). I am certain Susman and their experts are confident in the same.
I haven't read the document but counsel generally prepares an order for routine / procedural things such as this for the judge to simple sign, so that's likely what you're seeing if Caspar has not signed it.
They seem to give a status report every 2-3 months so this is why it's likely only to feb, at which time they will simply request the same for another 2-3 months
You can short otc stocks according to the otc website - see link below
Thus my post about margin and carry costs is likely the reason you see very little of it for stocks priced as low as this one
End of the day your comment on it being penny flippers and warrants would still hold but the issue w short selling otc isn't because it's illegal, it's that margin requirements for most brokers makes it unlikely to be profitable.
The concern is if there are brokers in this competitive world that require less margin- an answer to which I do not know . Or what we know is naked short selling which happens quite a bit - need to watch the fail to deliver lists to see if that game is occurring (at least potentially indicative - as fails aren't always because of naked shorting)
http://www.otcmarkets.com/learn/otc101-faq
Actually from what I have read it is allowed but the issue is margin and carry costs
I have never tried so I have no idea but link for people's reference below and an internet search brings up a number of hits concurring
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/otcpinksheetshortselling.asp
Grand theft auto beats U.K. Sales records - hmm I guess our PTAB approved claims would cover this wouldn't they?? Lol
http://www.loadthegame.com/2016/12/21/grand-theft-auto-v-beats-u-k-sales-record/
from an article I found supporting the idea that there won't be much shorting here on the R/S - take it for what it's worth
Margin Requirements
Brokers require investors to put up collateral to guarantee against potential losses in the form of margin requirements. Often times, brokers will require OTC investors to have $2.50 of margin per share to short a stock under $2.50, which can make shorting penny stocks very costly. For example, if an investor shorted 2,000 shares of a stock at $0.50, you have to have $5,000 in your account. All along, the maximum profit for this position would only be $1,000, if the stock went to zero.
Two key / major differences between this and VRNG / FH
1. Company will not need to dilute further as per PR- that's usually the cause of the pps drop post reverse and prior (when it's announced). No more cash burn here because of the contingency once the appeals are done
2. Again, I'm not positive on this but if you do the math on margin requirements and cost of carry to short a penny stock it's often not worthwhile. VRNG was on the Nasdaq and easily shorted at a low cost. If I'm correct on that analysis there won't be the same shorting pressure we saw w VRNG
3. Not a trader but I think the selling has been penny flippers who wanted a pop on district court exiting en masse along with the warrants
Time will tell what happens. I will add if it hits one cent and if not happy w my position as it stands
I don't think much shorting goes on for stocks at this price level
Margin requirements make it too costly to bother
Buy volume 700k vs 100k sell volume today
$150k salary for ten years of work is not a lot of money for a CEO friend
The man has devoted the last decade for enforcing these patents and only makes a ton if we all win too
Not sure what more you expect. Griping about the R/s or fact those who ensured we got through the ptab actually get paid for taking that risk for us is a bit silly when you consider what the alternative would have been
Lost in all of this as well - is Kidrin has not sold a share folks
Unlike "perlscam" and his band of thieves at VRNG/FH, when the stock spiked did Kidrin sell? No
He's held every single share he has and takes a measly $150k salary
If people here dump with:
1. PTAB approved MATERIAL CLAIMS
2. Smarter more knowledgeable tech/patent law minds suggesting they should go to the CAFC because they are better served than speeding to District Court
3. CEO not selling anything
4. A share price now trading as though we don't even have 6 upheld material claims
5. 1/3 of our current market cap in the stock of another company (WORX), = market saying we're worth 3 mil
well anyone who sold shouldn't ever invest again if that was what you thought you were doing
every fundamental indicator is aligned with being long here even after discounting for time as I said.
I think alot of people are going to regret their decision to sell in panic mode
1. I did not call you nor imply you are an idiot
2. I suggested you "look it up" as I didn't want to explain what it is and it takes a few long paragraphs to do so
3. My response is "what you asked" and my assessment on why no one has licensed yet - a small public NPE typically faces exactly what I described in trying to get licenses. Validity always has to come first before anyone is scared enough to agree (generally)
4. No need to get hostile
If you don't like an answer that pretty much addressed your question ok cool good for you
Just a reminder - we own 8% of works w a market cap of 14 mil
Therefore our patents are currently valued (after ptab affirmation of certain key claims) at three million (current market cap - worx ownership)
All I can say to that is LOL to panickers
Please sell it down to one cent so i can triple my position
If anyone here thinks this co is only worth 3 mil even after discounting for time and risk
Well good on ya! Lol
Thanks for the insight, merry xmas to you and yours as well. Let's hope for a very prosperous 2017 in this stock.
I will be adding on any silly weakness (in the 1 cent range if it gets there)- I did so in the past and regret not adding more at that level. Not sure it goes there again but if so I am guessing a number of us are ready to mop up shares
I have been in VRNG and like most lost a lot but also learned a great deal (along w vhc where I've made a decent amount), and as you say we are in a strong position. I also believe Kidrin and Susmans choice to go the CAFC is a VERY STRONG signal of their legal and technical views on validity of claims killed
It would have been very easy for them to go to District Court with what they had and "get a decent settlement ". Indeed with what we saw with the stock, that's what the market wanted so from a stock price perspective they passed on a "sure thing" - clearly this wasn't a decision taken lightly or a "gamble"
As I've said, frustrating short term but if one can see the forest for the trees and be patient I still am very comfortable with my position and more so given we have 6 validated ptab claims
The market is completely ignoring that now. Yet, when the IPRs were announced it sold off- that tells you right there that's what going on right now is an inefficiency
Good luck!
Wow that's a big investment, I assume you talk to Kidrin regularly?
Did you convey any concerns post the pr? And any feedback if so?
You have over 8 mil shares already?
You and me both. I will add at least 1 mil shares if this hits .01 again
I see that as unlikely but as I've always said I'm not a trader - i look at value and this stock at six cents was undervalued even considering warrants etc
I am happy to increase my position materially at very low levels
I expect we'll see the "January effect" in full force in this stock by the third week of Jan.
Many flippers took their losses here and will buy back in when they realize their panic was unwarranted and their wash sale restrictions are lifted
Happy to add at these levels with ptab verified claims!
Because as many NPEs face when they ask people to pay, they get a "no we won't sue us" response.
This is called efficient infringement (look it up). Basically people infringe until forced to for the most part because a drag it out in court strategy is leverage financially vs the patent holders.
A smart NPE goes vs a big boy first since the NPE is going to incur legal costs regardless. At least get bang for their buck so to speak. Upside here is we are on contingency
Once a big boy pays that means patents are validated and others see the pointlessness of going to court so they are more willing to settle
That being said, with some claims through the ptab I would hope Kidrin is at least talking to other infringers now as we have some "validated" patents so to speak, and hopefully this could provide enough fear for others to settle.
I suspect until they see it through the CAFC no one would though unless the cost is very low which isn't good for us.
The cost of the CAFC has now been borne in the stock price
"Faux longs" who were apparently in the for the long haul and ok with risk clearly weren't in for the long haul because risk has actually decreased but time has slightly increased on the front end. Flippers out too
Thus if one sold its really only because one didn't want to wait not what should drive a patient investors decision - risk