You claim 'plenty' (Seriously. vacuous signifiers aren't helpful. If you're going to make an argument, name names.) of penny companies get a company under NDA and promote like mad, therefore, this is exactly what we're witnessing here. I agree with this statement in the abstract. Yes, plenty of disreputable companies will say crazy things to get people's attention. However, with STWA, this argument has two problems:
1) STWA would be a failure if this were their game. They published no PR statement after the TRP contract was signed, and didn't mention it until their annual 'letter to shareholders'. I'd hardly call this 'promoting it like mad.' So even if 'plenty' of penny stocks do this, the techniques STWA is using seem antithetical to the justifications you provide.
2) There is an essential difference between "you talked with my company and now you have details. Boom. NDA." and "We've been in contract talks for months. Lets develop a pilot program". For your argument to be persuasive, you need to provide actual examples of multi-billion dollar companies who get duped by scams with shiny powerpoint presentations. I do agree that TRP's interest might simply be to 'green' their project. That's okay. If they want to pay STWA $200m so that they can look greener, more power to them.
As for mutual funds, it's already happened. For someone who posts about STWA daily, you sure have a short memory of things that happen about it. Recall the public conversations in July where we made sense of what ENY/Guggenheim was doing by filing its paperwork with regard to STWA. The end of that conversation was that they filed the paperwork for them to purchase the stock. Isn't it just a little too ironic that ENY files these documents immediately after TRP, one of the stocks the ETF is most heavily invested in, signs a contract with the company? It's almost like ENY knew that TRP was interested in the company.
Final thought. More and more, I notice you end your responses to me with these statements like "it's pointless to debate" or "We just differ in our perspectives." I think that's weak. If you're going to take the time to craft an argument, you should at least be willing to defend it. Debate is awesome. It lets us test competing conceptions of the truth during moments of uncertainty. But it also only works when those involved are willing to actual change their perspective based on the stregnth of competing arguments. Simply throwing your hands up in the air saying 'we just disagree!' proves that you're not actually here to have a discussion. It means that you are just a troll. And that's sad, because again, debate is awesome, but also of all the bashers, you're the one who would occasionally be willing to go toe-to-toe in an intellectual discussion about the company. But now you're just becoming Sox 2.0. And as someone who thinks that both sides of arguments should be provided an open forum, I think this is sad.
AI
