RE:RE:RE:Here's what I'm readingWe are just saying that the "analyst's" opinion is about as credible as that of a 5-year-old child, because of the obvious mistakes. If he thought that is was fairly valued with $30m of debt, then with $30m less debt, he should think the company is worth $30m more. But of course, he didn't change his view, because he is an idiot (not profanity, just using the proper word).
There are people saying it will be profitable at $5m (like Andre). I don't know it is true or not. We will have to wait a year to find out.
But making a clear logical error, and not adjusting one's view, suggests this analyst is the one trying to con investors.
Alanmakingcents wrote: Whippet, fair enough and I noticed the chap used cumulative deficit and debt incorrectly. But he did admit to that. True, he didn't change his conclusion but that was his view. My question is why didn't you and others call out posters for "lying" about profitability or any number of other misstatements made over the last six months that I have been following. I repeat, one sided cheerleading smacks of desperation and novice investing. It is a tell of suspect stocks to many seasoned investors.
ps: profanity and bullying is another tell.
Alan