nyt Friday, 11/10/17 03:18:07 AM Re: None 0 Post # of 65274 "yesterday was not even the lo close for 25 hrs" ........ Simple. I misspoke. I meant to say that when I was looking (I think it was near the end of day..?), the price appeared, on the day chart, to have dropped to 2 cents. What I meant was that when it hit 2 cents, as far as I know that was the lowest pps in 5 yrs (or actually 57 months) but that is based on the daily close prices, so maybe it hit 2 cents before along the way.. Still the point was I think close to true, if not totally true, that 2 cents is pretty much the lowest price in close to 5 yrs. That was the main point. And also, this 2 cents, even if it hit 2 cents before (during that 57 month period) is more "weighted" when one considers that it is at the end of a 5 year down trend. That is indisputable. 2 cents at the end of a 5 yr trend of downward slide is way more significant than at any other time during that period because it continues to depict the real trend. Whereas this current "vwap" baloney is just that, in the case of this stock and its total circumstances. It's useless & meaningless & that's why no one else speaks about it or cares about it. It's an important metric in other more classical stock scenarios, but useless here. It's about as important as the made up "NIT W". One other thing I notice is that when I 1st posted the misspoken post about lowest close in 5 yrs, I didn't state it as fact, I asked if I was mistaken about it. THAT is what I said. And another thing I noticed is that when I looked at any charts besides that days chart, ie the 5 yr chart, it depicted a line showing that days close as being at the lowest level during that entire 57 month period. So that also was somewhat confusing. Im guess that the closing price for approx those last 3 days or so was as lo as it had ever been in those 57 mos of closes (there is only so much linear resolution on the line on the charts as I can see them. It clearly showed the line to be at the lowest point of the entire period noted. So the bottom line is that the point I made about the price being at its lowest in near 5 yrs was quite true except for maybe a few measly hundredths of a cent the day or 2 before (and I guess possibly at some other point in the time frame that I am not able to see). The main point then is valid and of serious import.