Replies to post #16065 on ScripsAmerica Inc. (SCRCQ)

[coolerheadsprevail]

Alleyba says.....

.....quote from you

I have posted on many occasions that I am long SCRC and have been since last summer, when most SCRC investors jumped on board what we thought was a legitimate rocket ship launching. I have also posted many times about the fact that I traded around my core position, as I and many others regularly do w/penny spec stocks, in order to de-risk, and that I now am patiently waiting on my pile of long commons that I am free-rolling w/what is essentially house money.

Am I supposed to interpret that that you are sitting on restricted stock waiting fro your psper to unlock since you are waiting on your house money?

Wow. Is this question for real? I have no idea whether you are being facetious or you really have no idea what the terms “trading around a core position”, “de-risk”, “free roll”, and "house money” mean. These are very common terms/phrases used all the time by investors and traders everywhere and are nearly universally understood.

So, as much as I find it difficult to believe that someone allegedly knowledgeable enough to be playing in a penny stock like SCRC doesn’t know what these terms/phrases mean, I will extend to you the benefit of the doubt and explain it to you:

Trading around a core position is an investing approach commonly used by investors to de-risk. De-risking is exactly what the words imply: To lower your risk. How does trading around a core position accomplish this? It can best be conveyed by using an example.

So let’s say that hypothetically, an investor invested $10,000 to open a position in SCRC by buying 100,000 shares @ .10/share. Now, this investor really likes the potential of SCRC but also recognizes that SCRC is a penny stock for a reason, and that statistically, the odds of a penny stock ever making anything of itself are not high. Certainly possible, but statistically, it’s inherently risky. So this investor decides that he wants to keep skin in the game and not miss any of SCRC’s growth, but he also decides that he wants to de-risk as much as possible.

There is more than one way to do de-risk, but I will provide what is the easiest scenario to understand: Let’s say the sp rises to .20 (just like it actually did w/SCRC recently). This investor now has $20,000 in his portfolio. This investor decides to de-risk by selling half of his shares (50,000 shares) at .20. This sale results in proceeds of $10,000, which he now has available to re-deploy elsewhere. What this investor has left is the remaining 50,000 shares valued at .20/share, which is another $10,000 in value.

So, what has happened is that this investor is now completely de-risked. He has taken his original $10,000 in cash off the table and so he now has zero risk. But he still has $10,000 worth of SCRC stock in his portfolio, which represents shares that he is now “free rolling”, or another way to say it is that you are using “house money” (a phrase taken from the casino industry that is used to convey the fact that it is not YOUR own money being gambled with). In essence, the shares that remain in your portfolio after you have taken your initial investment off the table represent free shares that you no longer have to worry about.

Make sense? So I hope that after now understanding this, you will see how non-sensical a conclusion it is for you to draw that if someone is riding “free shares” or “playing with house money” that it somehow equates to that person being a recipient of restricted stock from the company.

But I would be eager to hear your thoughts on why (or even how) you and the other Core members keep saying that it would be untrue to refer to JOSEPH ZAMPETTI and those members of his “inner core” who were recipients of restricted stock as compensation for their promotional services as criminals if they indeed have thumbed their noses at securities laws and have intentionally remained non-compliant with Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933…

[Alleyba1]

Alleyba says.............

.........there is nothing wrong about de-risking. It is all about all of us making $