RE: RE: RE: Thanks Sam8888 You write:
"My only concern is that Brent sold...and he must have a reason...I wonder if he even sold since he would have lost 50 percent more on his investment in the 3 extra days he supposedly waits before selling....Of course how can anyone really confirm that he waits 3 days to sell???
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see no material change that would have my telling people to sell at a loss of 80% or more rather than sticking with the company a bit longer.
He condemns his readers to massive losses. He provides no compelling reason for devalue the company by this much, not even close. At 18 cents!!!!
It is incomprehensible to me!
His "three days rule" is meaningless bunk, so who cares if he follows it.
CTG traded hundreds of thousands of shares at up to 100% higher than its recent close, and he does not commit to not sell as many shares as he wants up until he posts his comments.
So, he and his buddies could have sold everything they had, and Mr. Cook could be sitting on a single board lot, crying on his reader's shoulders that he had to wait three days.
Nobody knows what he does.
His three-day waiting period is as much bunk as one can imagine since he can sell every share he has prior to his comments in his newsletter.
It is the precisely same 100% bunk as unreal as the reality that CTG traded at a 100% premium just a very short time ago.
It is 100% meaningless unless he restricts himself from selling for a reasonable -but meaningful- period before he publishes his comments.gnificantly.
More significantly, he doesn't state his buy position when he publishes his newsletter.
It would be a different game if he stated, "I have purchased 500,000 shares of CTG at 50 cents".
At least this would give his readers a sense of where he stands financially when he recommends a stock.
Even stating, "I currently own shares in CTG" when he publishes his report is meaningless, as this gives no guidance to his readers.
I understand that he doesn't have to, but the bunk that he won't sell for three days means zero, but he puts this forth as a way of stating, "I am in the same boat as you are" when he is probably in a very different position...in two senses of that word.
His three-day rule gives the impression that he is rising or sinking with his readers, but it doesn't just mean that because it means nothing at all...except that he might...or might not...have sold the vast (or very vast) majority of his shares beforehand.
This is from a recent post that I wrote on the Glass Earth page:
"I assume the three-day rule applies to only the stock that he has not yet sold on the day of his 'selling' comments, as this is logically true, so there is no alternative.
But given the lemming-like behaviour of his readers, he might have sold some, most, or virtually all his stock prior to his comments, leaving him little to sell after his newsletter reached people's in-boxes at 2:00 pm on a Wednesday or early some Friday morning or whenever he chooses to sent it.
So, without knowing what he has sold prior to his comments, the degree his "sacrifices" himself at the altar of his three-day rule is impossible to understand.
However, if he chose to sell virtually every share prior to his 'sell' comments, then that is up to him.
In looking at the CTG stock brought to my attention last week, anyone could have sold hundreds of thousands shares in the 40-plus cent level in the days and weeks prior to his newsletter with the 'selling' comment.
If I am the family stock-guru, and I post buy recommendation on the family facebook page, but my sister's pesky, not-too-bright, and much-too-rich husband in Guangzhou goes out the day after I suggest he start to slowly accumulate shares and runs the stock up 100%, I would only need to see this once before I would buy my own shares before I told him.
In fact, I would sell him my shares at 70 cents and then phone him and say, "How many times do I have to tell you that I said to judiciously accumulate shares, not double the stock by 9:35 that day! I sold you my shares, and if you plan to be such a stupid buyer next time, I will sell them to you again"
The same is true on the sell side."
There is no discluosure -and no legal necessity on his part- as he wrote in response to one of my posts that he is just saying what he does with his money.
As I continue to accumulate a substantial position in CTG that will certainly pass 1,000,000 this week...and will go much further...he might be my greatest competitor on the buy side.
Nobody knows.
If he is slamming out his shares with his not-too-bright readers, then he is not a buyer right now.
But there is nothing to say that he didn't unload his shares at 40 cents over the weeks prior to his comments, or even as CTG raced well past $1.00 days after his first comments, as we have no idea what he is doing.
He doesn't have to tell us what he is doing, but I am certain of one thinsg:
His readers are taking a massive loss with about the highest buy-side on both CTG and GEL and about the lowest sell-side on both CTG and GEL.
And Mr. Cook?
He may be playing a different game as we have no knowledge of where he bought or where he sold his position.
And when you write, "and he must have a reason" I don't agree.
I can find no hole in Glass Earth that would justify anyone taking a massive loss weeks before they will release two important holes and just as they have topped off the bank accounts, so financially they are fine.
He may not see it as a buy...and I disagree...but to condem his readers to that kind of loss makes no sense to me.
The same is true of CTG, which I understand less...but to be buying at 80 cents to $1.00 or $1.26 and crashing the stock with a massive wave of selling that has it at 18 cents like some junior piece-of-worthless junior mining junk is beyond my comprehension.
You just think he is smarter than I do, and god-willing he won't write again and say he told his people not to sell like that, meaningless words to me.
As I posted once before on both the GEL and CTG sites:
"Nevertheless, even moderate and moderated buying of CTG or GEL would not have whetted the appetite of his readers: There are not simply enough shares available in the markets of either CTG or GEL to accommodate the size of the buying generated by Mr. Cook’s comments.
This is not the stock market equivalent of feeding 5,000 people with two fish and five loaves of bread.
No one from heaven is giving anyone a hand here, save the shareholders who were positioned prior to these fantastical runs and dives...so very lucky though they are.
Sam