The information you are projecting as "factual" once again comes from conversations and/or information issued by company management. The quote you use from the Stanley VP could easily be a blurb written by someone at EXPH and submitted to someone in Stanley's PR department for approval to issue.
The thing it would seem impossible for some to comprehend is this:
"IF, repeat, IF the people that are issuing this information are the management of the company and you are relying 100% on what they are telling you AND it turns out they have been deceiving shareholders all along, the PRs they issue and the information they release on which you base your investment decisions and rationale would ALSO likely be duplicitous and you would STILL be being deceived."
Solid companies who are genuinely employed in the business of generating the vast majority of their revenues from product sales should be able to be vetted as to their true intent from outside, unbiased, well recognized sources independent of any company management influence. Financials are the beginning and end of that vetting process and EXPH's are almost non-existent. THAT vetted info is what you base an investment decision on. Those are FACTS. You are taking what has been specifically prepared for your consumption by individuals who's motives are, at present, by no means 100% clear and proven and issuing statements taken from that information as if it has been proven as factual. It is NOT. It is your OPINION based on information you received from individuals who have not proven themselves lately to be working in the best interests of their shareholders. It would be greatly helpful to make that situation clear as otherwise these posts about the company and it's management could be interpreted as uncertain as to motive themselves. "Let O-V-O-E"...let "Outsiders Vet Our EXPH". You should certainly know THAT by now. All IMHO.
SBB
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
