AI
Friday, June 26, 2009 3:05:12 PM
Very well doogdilinger 
You change reference points to fit your need-- no worries...
Here's exactly what I said in summarizing a post, parts of which this board had no problem with parading as a positive: "... I think this highlights the legitimacy of a company and its potential, pitted against a liquidity generating promotion campaign. Given historical records, the odds are the latter will be abused and the eventual result will be either slow bleeding drift or impatient seller(s) steeper decline ..."
Pay enough money to enough promoters and any stock will enjoy a quick run-- hope so -- otherwise they probably won't be hired again. It's the lasting affect-- sustainability. Promotions are predicated on attracting "investors" to pay any number of other groups including company, financier(s), and/or "momentum traders." The shelf-life of promotion results is typically very short after the run. This one has "enjoyed" 2 runs thus far, but currently over 1/2 of the shares traded are underwater... again we will see where they eventually settle-- new base, return to start, or somewhere in between...
Sundar's selling directly contributed to the first run's failure to continue to increase as his sells were at the apex. Haven't analyzed his subsequent sells...
Manta gets their info from D&B which is a very reputable company that provides data on private companies. They absolutely could be wrong, but I provided the reference. I believe your reference to $100 million came from you imagining an increase over a reported $71.5 million in 2007 ( http://www.entrepreneur.com/hot100/details/200819.html )and your $150 million comes from a 2006 article ( http://www.mrketplace.com/content/features/issue-overview/news/single-news-page/article/concept-one-buying-drew-pearson/ ). Obviously from mid-2007 on we have been economically challenged-- your numbers may or may not reflect actualities. But I grant you the large discrepancy from Manta's numbers to your referenced numbers. The argument to be made however, is the amount DUSS will realize-- it will take $1 million in sales to generate $50k in DUSS revenues (via royalties).
I have provided answers with references-- on the other hand you have provided a counter with a rabbit hole. I assume anyone may either feel free to try to run it down or accept your word. Given your answer is more desirable, I reckon most will choose that
And I would suggest by your own standard, a "paltry" amount of shares traded at 0.12 -- but it pads the stats
You change reference points to fit your need-- no worries... Here's exactly what I said in summarizing a post, parts of which this board had no problem with parading as a positive: "... I think this highlights the legitimacy of a company and its potential, pitted against a liquidity generating promotion campaign. Given historical records, the odds are the latter will be abused and the eventual result will be either slow bleeding drift or impatient seller(s) steeper decline ..."
Pay enough money to enough promoters and any stock will enjoy a quick run-- hope so -- otherwise they probably won't be hired again. It's the lasting affect-- sustainability. Promotions are predicated on attracting "investors" to pay any number of other groups including company, financier(s), and/or "momentum traders." The shelf-life of promotion results is typically very short after the run. This one has "enjoyed" 2 runs thus far, but currently over 1/2 of the shares traded are underwater... again we will see where they eventually settle-- new base, return to start, or somewhere in between...
Sundar's selling directly contributed to the first run's failure to continue to increase as his sells were at the apex. Haven't analyzed his subsequent sells...
Manta gets their info from D&B which is a very reputable company that provides data on private companies. They absolutely could be wrong, but I provided the reference. I believe your reference to $100 million came from you imagining an increase over a reported $71.5 million in 2007 ( http://www.entrepreneur.com/hot100/details/200819.html )and your $150 million comes from a 2006 article ( http://www.mrketplace.com/content/features/issue-overview/news/single-news-page/article/concept-one-buying-drew-pearson/ ). Obviously from mid-2007 on we have been economically challenged-- your numbers may or may not reflect actualities. But I grant you the large discrepancy from Manta's numbers to your referenced numbers. The argument to be made however, is the amount DUSS will realize-- it will take $1 million in sales to generate $50k in DUSS revenues (via royalties).
I have provided answers with references-- on the other hand you have provided a counter with a rabbit hole. I assume anyone may either feel free to try to run it down or accept your word. Given your answer is more desirable, I reckon most will choose that
And I would suggest by your own standard, a "paltry" amount of shares traded at 0.12 -- but it pads the stats
Join the InvestorsHub Community
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.
