Replies to post #8129 on NU Ride Inc (NRDE)

[JoshTaeger]

There’s a lie in the first paragraph. NoRide is not an automotive manufacturer. NoRide has as much capability to manufacture cars as it does to be considered a chicken processor.

So…chicken-processor NoRide is a shell.

[dss19552002]

Okay, the first point about insider buying appears to be correct. That is, form 4's and 3's have been filed. Insider buying is normally considered a bullish sign. Given the change in management and the function of the company, I think it's neutral here, but it is fair to consider it bullish, so your interpretation is fair, at least to a point.

The article does have some issues. The first paragraph, says "Esopus Creek Value Series Fund LP - Series A, a significant investor in NU Ride Inc. (NASDAQ:RIDE)," shows old information. The stock isn't on NASDAQ, and the symbol is not RIDE, not anymore. So, the writer looks like he is just changing an old article template and using old bad information. He didn't properly proof read the article. Also, Nu Ride is not, according to its website and automotive manufacturer, so Josh's comment is actually fair, though I wouldn't say lie, but just wrong, and poorly either researched or proof read. The further evidence is in the 5th paragraph where the writer says "As Esopus Creek Value Series Fund LP increases its stake in NU Ride Inc. (NASDAQ:NRDE), " It isn't NASDAQ, but OTC Pink current. So again, while the write corrects the stock symbol, the stock information is still wrong.

The final paragraph also has problems:

From a financial standpoint, NU Ride Inc. has had a remarkable revenue growth of 1106.19% in the last twelve months as of Q4 2023, although it is important to note that the company's gross profit margins have been weak, with a -3812.39% gross profit margin in the same period. This suggests that while revenue is increasing, profitability remains a challenge for the company.

They have had in the last 2 quarters $0 in revenue. That's not remarkable revenue growth, but a 100% revenue decline. While over a 12 month period this is true, it isn't really accurate or telling what really happened. So, again, this is poor research and a failure to actually look at the data. I am reluctant to say lie here, but since it is clearly untrue, I can't argue with those who say lie. I just think it's a sloppy article and not really great therefore in supporting your case.