RE:RE:RE:RE:A clearer estimate of EATS actual valueIt looks like the insider trading the past week is moslty from Balderson who exercised 150,000 shares in options at $0.50.
I definiitely agree insider selling is not encouraging, but it also makes sense that a few EATS management (3 to be exact: Morris, Balderson, and Kang) are selling given the context you describe. Your suggesting to either stay away from EATS until its way lower or sell to protect profits, yet when the principles sell, you call them rats?
Given that the recent dip of growth stocks is chopping risk off the old block, and that the principles here are steeped in this industry, a little chopping to manage their own risk does not seem contemptious to me. It seems common sense.
Managing risk is important as the market tries to figure out where this type of stock - still way overvalued, but with lots of growth potential - should be valued during the short and mid term. I'm sure this is on the mind of the principles as well who have a lot more at stake than most of us.
Meanwhile, I don't think we have seen any selling from the other 7 or so members of the management team. What do you make of that? Does it imply pending doomsday for EATS or a few folks facing particular challenges with respect to risk in their own portfolios?
For the record, my intention here is not too pump the stock. I'm genuinely interested in EATS and this broader space for how it aligns my financial goals, ethics, and knowledge of sustinability. Also, I'm well in the green and I do some periodic buying and selling, which is why I stay tuned in to the news and others opinions.
But to pass my opinion off as a pumper as you actively attack the character of EATS management team over the past months while trying to get it down to $1.60 is hypocraisy.
If its EATS is roughly 2x overvalued in a hyper-growth potential space, and 7/10 of the mngt team still looks rock solid and forward looking, EATS looks good to me.