cliffvb- re: HSOA
cliff- first of all, I think it important to point out that the PR that was the biggest deception was the one on 8/15/06, and it has in fact been taken off Stocklemons website. I mean, I just went there, and when I click that report, it doesn't come up. The reason for this IMO, is that this was an outright lie told by Stocklemon. I don't have to strain to remember, because I was so convinced that Stocklemon had something this time, with the fact of 5M shares more of insider trading by HSOA, that I sold the stock myself. I stupidly believed them, and just couldn't take it anymore. What I did, was only glance at the S3 filing, instead of reading it. The stock was plummeting so fast that day, that I just figured the insiders really were sellling off, and sold my shares. Cliff, since we don't have the Stocklemon report, there is no way I can prove that Stocklemon was totally deceptive at making stockholders think the CEO and other insiders of HSOA were selling 5M shares, but I read it closely.
As far as the first PR about HSOA, the thrust of that was that HSOA owned 40% of ARH, and said someone at ARH told them that. ARH came out the next day and said straight out that HSOA did not own 40% of ARH, or any part in fact, and that Stocklemon was being very deceptive. The fact that the CEO and CFO of HSOA sold off shares, although it didn't look good after the ARH PR, was not illegal. I mean, insiders sell shares all the time, and often after good news. Take a look at NVR- those insiders sold for years, while the stock went from $50-$950.
Cliff- here's the bottom line though. It was right before HOM was changing their ticker symbol to HSOA that all the lawsuits were coming from the Stocklemon reports. Why did the Nasdaq let HSOA come onto the exchange when all the aqusations were flying about how scammy HSOA was if they thought the company was BS or was doing illegal things. The Nasdaq took around 10 days - two weeks longer because they were looking over more documents from HOM to make sure that there was nothing illegal going on- IMO. In addtion to all this, HSOA reported a solid June qtr, and beat expectaitions, and gave unreal guidence for the remainder of the year. Also, from what I understand, there will be no class action law suit as I haven't heard that there is a lead plaintiff obtained. If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate it if you could point out any lawfirm that could get a lead plaintiff.
Look Cliff, I'm not saying that HSOA made the best moves with the timing of the insders sells, or am I saying that they didn't overdo the ARH PR, but they did nothing illegal. Stocklemon can use all the superficial eveidence, deception, or even outright lies about how HSOA is scammy, but the bottom line is their balance sheet is clean as a whistle, they are meeting or beating the numbers they promised, and they just guided for a blowout $.40+ for the last two qtrs. Now, you don't have to invest in the company if you believe they are BS, but I think Stocklemon is the one that's BS, and feel that with a 8.5 PE going forward fully taxed, and the likelyhood that business in New Orleans will remain robust for HSOA into 2007, I choose to take a shot. I am up on HSOA right now by a little from the previous times I played it. I just got in with a huge amount of shares at $5.63 avg, so I'm down on that, but I'm not selling, and time will tell if that was a good choice or not. Cliff- I'll make a point of telling the board when I sell HSOA, win or lose, so we'll see if my reasoning was good or bad on this one. Wade
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
