I have no argument that says the stock will or won't go to any given price. That's why they're bought and sold. And I don't disagree with your .03 statement. However, the post I was replying to said OSSG was worth more than .03 which is/was the ask. That was based on not getting filled at the bid of .016.
I was just saying that not getting a buy filled at the bid doesn't mean it's worth more than the ask. That goes for any shares of any company.
Most telling about your price history is the volume column. Using that as your crystal ball doesn't paint a rosy picture. However, the central question of fairly, under or over valued is the point. If you vote for under valued, how do you support your argument? Why should it be worth more than its asset value (NAV). If you vote over valued, how can it be worth less than that same number?
I guess my question could be, why don't you hear people saying, "Buy the Magellan Fund, it's gonna fly!"? Holding companies, like funds, are never worth more than the sum of their parts. I would love to hear an argument that says anything else. Buying OSSG is betting that one or more of Stanton's companies is going up and going up "big time" because OSSG will only capture its fraction of that rise.
More likely, a buyer is betting that all the holdings will go up over time. In order for OSSG to double, all the companies held would, on average, have to double. As far as rating OSSG as an investment prospect, I think it's some better than throwing money at one BB or pink stock because the risk is spread. But expectations should be adjusted for the same reasons.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
