Well, l'il Johnny, you're cordially invited to research past posts of mine or, better yet, have that 'radio' character do it for you. I don't believe you'll find the word 'revocation' in any of my posts. Hell, I don't even know how to spell revocation.
Let's talk truths for a brief:
The "revocation" kerfuffle began with the fed actually doing exactly that. Thus, it wasn't much of a stretch to verbalize the term. You follow so far?
Okay, so exactly WHY did that happenstance take place? Well, Linda dug herself into a hole by failing to file certain documents that the big, bad fed dictated take place. You with me?
Linda, to her credit, filled that hole and got reinstated. Imagine that!!! Get in trouble and get back out!! Happens all the time, BUT, with the aid of a very knowledgeable and probably very expensive lawyer, the return to the pinks was triumphant.
What happened as a result? Pumpers who were well aware of the possibility of making bank -- BIG bank -- on the unlikely reinstatement were gifted with an immediate jump in PPS to a lofty $.04. This, predicated upon the reinstatement, NOT because the company had anything promising other than the usual 'good-time-Charlie' promises that, thus far, have done nothing.
So, you can summon, not sermon (sic), up your minions and add all the smarm you like, but company performance will make or break this lottery play, not anyone else -- pro OR con. The FACT that the pps is barely holding on at sub-0.003 speaks volumes or did you miss it?
N'est-ce pas?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
