ZeroEden, I understand why you would think that. However I'm not saying this just because I'm trying to be bullish 100% of the time and for the sole purpose of squashing negative arguments, even though that may appear to be the case. I have a reason for saying this. If you have traded OTC for 10 years and have a lot of experience on watching thousands of OTC stocks trade then you would understand what I'm saying (i'm not saying you don't btw, maybe you do IDK). 99% of the time, it is indeed the case that low volume is better than high volume. Ok, maybe not 99% of the time, but definitely more than 60% of the time. On the contrary, high volume on any given OTC stock generally means that the company in engaged in toxic dilution through the use of predatory toxic lenders who specialize in lending money directly to OTC companies under the terms of being able to convert that loan to shares immediately and dump them on the market to shareholders. These companies specialize in OTC, and it's all they do.
The sole reason for this is because of what I refer to as the OTC dilution cycle. You can call it what you want, but basically this is how 90% of all OTC companies operate:
90% of the time OTC companies:
a) have no real product or service and are what most refer to as a scam.
b) solely start the company to sell stock and pay themselves (note: this is why Sano and other's arguments may appear valid on the surface, before actually taking a deeper dive)
c) dilute their stock using toxic lenders which drive the stock down, when the dilution faucet turns off the company does a pump, and the stock can rally thousands of percent, only to see management dilute again, turn the faucet back on and back down she goes. This is why one data point is the stock chart to determine if an OTC company is engaged in toxic dilution. If you see a stock have wild swings by thousands of percent every 3 to 5 months for many years you can bet they are engaged in toxic dilution, then you confirm it using other data points. Another reason why S is so incredibly wrong about QSEP going sub penny due to the weight of dilution, QSEP has no toxic lenders-- and they have never used them.
d) 90% of OTC companies don't have real investors who are invested in the long term success of the company, instead they only have toxic lenders who lend the company money and then sell immediately, dump all of their stock on the open market to collect their half a cent profit on a billion shares (for example). (You can make a ton of money riding these waves on these crap penny stocks, and I have, but this is not the type of company QSEP is. QSEP is a quality OTC company.)
The above up and down waves of dilution in 90% of OTC stocks is what I refer to as the OTC dilution or crap cycle. This is why, when you consistently see low volume in an OTC stock over time you have confirmation that management is not engaged in toxic dilution, plus you can simply tell by reading the 10k and 10Q filings. All lenders if a company has engaged them have to be listed on the filings. Another reason why it's a good idea to stay away from most OTC companies as a long term investment is because the could be: not current, dark/defunct, non reporting, and/or have a stop sign. I have paid to take classes on this stuff. There is a ton more info I could add here about OTC companies and dilution like listing all of the toxic lenders that you want to look for in the filings but you get the gist.
Getting back to my point, when you see low volume for a constant period of time and then confirm all of the other 10 things I look for in an OTC investment you know that management could be doing 10 other things to take advantage of shareholders. If they are not doing these things there is only one reason for it; they want the company to succeed and shareholders to succeed together. This is why legit management is so crucial.
It's also why when you see low persistent volume on the OTC it's generally (one might say 90% of the time, and definitely at least 60% of the time) a very good sign, because it means the company is likely not one of the 90% of OTC stocks that are engaged in toxic dilution. Maybe you disagree, but I know this to be the case regarding low volume from my classes. Again, it's one of the things I like most about QSEP. They do not engage in toxic dilution, and have never done so which is so extremely rare in the OTC I can't begin to say how rare that is. And, as an investment it's exactly what you want to see in a stock like this. One fun fact is that a huge portion of the recent OS has not even been converted into shares for years.
I don't always have time to write a long explanation like this, today I really didn't have the time. Generally if I say something I have a reason behind it. I hope this added value for you.
AI
