I don't disagree. But keep in mind, Dennis didn't volunteer any information to me. I called him and he wasn't trying to sell me on anything. From the other posts here, he's been relatively unavailable to shareholders' calls. He had no advance knowledge that I would be calling. He sounded surprised to some extent at my questions and perceptions.
That, to me, was as important as the content of our discussion. I gave him my impressions and my perception as a long. He responded with his version. The only specifics were that he, himself, was not selling and that he did not believe there had been any issuance of shares without his knowledge (he didn't understand how that could even be the case) and that he did not believe that "insiders" had been selling. Obviously, if a brother-in-law were to sell a million shares for whatever reason, is it conceivable that a CEO would know that? Probably not, but we are talking in gross numbers here. What I mean is that it's going to turn out black or white. There is such a variance between, let's say a float of 30 million vs. the typical sub-penny pinkie, that creates the tremendous risk/reward potential now.
Here's the way I look at it. I could have waited until there is confirmation that there has been no dilution or at least nothing like the hundreds of millions of shares that are typical in pink sub-penny land.
Or I could have taken the gambling money and established a position at a gambler's price. There is a price to be paid for certainty and a price to be paid for risk. I'm willing to take the gambler's risk here, with the caveat that I can afford a total loss of my play. I have more information and there is less uncertainty than when I bought at a similar price HISC. The trading was similar, with a huge spread, and I believe the same type of MM games. Just my opinion.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
