Zen - why would i do that?
unlike wavoids, i'm willing to wait to see how it all plays out instead of prematurely ascribing liability (or exoneration) to Wave w/out the facts.
discovery awaits & who knows what that might produce.
you wrote:
"The mere fact that the suits are ALL FLAWED in their statements regarding IBM, renders them moot."
i disagree w/that conclusion & IMO when Q4 results are reported suspect that there will be -0- meaningful revs from selling ETS to the IBM installed base, irrespective of the so-called "partnership."
and:
"...there have been some big positions accumulated in the last six weeks, and I think that kind of money is fairly sure these suits, and the SEC, will amount to nothing."
haven't seen any evidence to support this contention. it remains entirely possible that those positions were taken ahead of the SEC investigation announcement & only reported afterward.
it also remains possible that the owners of those "big positions" could be fighting it out to be the lead plaintiffs, most notably CalPERs.
if yer version is so accurate, why is wavx tanking during the hype season & what do you make of that 12% trading spike (& subsequent round trip the next day)?
hi bargey - spincerely enjoyed yer lunch report & the various responses!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
