BINGO! VERY WELL SAID MIKE! THIS POS. CONVICTED CEO BW signed his final chapter when he set the circus in NY. desperation was all about! nothing alse!IT WAS TOTALLY EMBARRASSED!HIS CARRIER OF THIS TURD IS SCAM NEWBIES! THAT IS WHY I"M HERE TO WARN THEM WHO IS THIS CON ARTIST! BBDA IS A HUGE SCAM SELLING SHARES MACHINE! LIFE IS GOOD FOR HIM AND HIS PEEPS!BUYERS BEWARE! It becomes very easy to do once you stop viewing the CEO in a forced neutral light. That's not hard to do if one stops excusing what he's done, thinking it can't be judged as negative unless he's explained why he did it or finding convoluted and improbable explanations and using those was working theories. This is a great example.
If what he says can be viewed as positive for shareholder interests - chances are it's false or will turn out that way.
If what he says can be viewed as negative for shareholder interests - chances are it's true and being stated only because it has to, to cover his backside.
And you have what's not being said or is being covered up, which is going to be negative.
All of it just requires that a forced neutral view be abandoned and a judgement be made about a person's past behavior. When someone applies for credit, their credit history is checked to find out their creditworthiness. If it's bad enough, no credit will be extended. Does that mean the person wouldn't pay back the credit line this time? No. But it means a judgement has been made about how they will most likely behave.
When it comes to BW, time has shown where his interests lie - and it's not in his fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders. Therefore, when any new statement is passed through that filter, it is fairly easy to understand which things are being said to placate current holders and/or lure new ones and which ones serve another purpose.
When he talks about uplisting, he's pulling your leg. How do we know this? He's talked about uplisting for over 4 years and has never taken any step towards it. He's already proven that those statements have no veracity coming from him. It doesn't matter if you can describe a winding path to get there with all kinds of conditions and time frames - It's still not going to happen.
When he says he's not going to audit BBDA, he's telling the truth. How do we know that? Because he's talked about auditing BBDA for 4+ years and has never done it. So when he talks about not doing it - it definitely isn't gonna happen! No matter what he says about it - it doesn't happen. He wasn't telling the truth about it before, but he is now.
If you stop using trust as the default behavior in every situation, it's easier to charcterize the statements. At some point, you just have to exercise judgement and declare that a person's statements are not trustworthy. It's done all the time in the business world and this is no different. This isn't a religion, a businessperson is judged on past statements, behavior and actions. If someone chooses to assume the risk that all of that will change, that's their businness, but it doesn't mean that taking a more predicable view is being unfairly negative. It is just being realistic.
