Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

First Uranium Corporation T.FIU



TSX:FIU - Post by User

Post by BillyKon Apr 05, 2012 10:46pm
148 Views
Post# 19766120

Simple math, Pilio... (everyone should read this,

Simple math, Pilio... (everyone should read this,

So, Pilio claims he has 1.2 million shares that he has been accumulating for the past 4 years. Yeah, right... but's let roll with it.

Notice that he has not mentioned what his average cost is and repeatedly avoids answering this very basic question. The reason he hasn't answered this very simple question is because he knows it will expose him.

Let's do the math, shall we?

If Pilio has been buying 1.2 million shares over the past 4 years, what do you suppose that his avg cost might be?

At the beginning of February 2008, when Pilio initially invested in FIU, it was trading at $10-$11. In the 11 months that ensued, FIU nose-dived all the way down to around $2 in a consistent and sustained manner and it began 2009 at under $2.50. This is where Pilio presumably averaged down and picked up quite a few shares. He couldn't have gotten a great price because no matter how patient you are, when a stock does nothing but drift lower for 11 consecutive months, there is no defense against that when averaging down.

So, if Pilio got  in at $10, doubled down at $6 and then doubled down again at $3 we would have increased his shares by a factor of 4 and brought his average cost down to $6.50.

If Pilio got in at $10 (and decided to agressively average down), doubled down at $8, then $6, then $4 and then $2 he would have increased his shares 16-FOLD and obtained an avg cost of  $4.60. 

Now let's assume that Pilio is a genius and averaged down like a God! Pilio get's in at $10, doubles down at an avg of $5 and quadruples down at an avg cost of $2.50. He would have increased his shares 10-FOLD and obtained an avg cost of $3.50.

IN 2009, FIU opens at 2.50, starts moving higher, hits a high of $7.50 in mid-may and then drifts back down to 2.30 to close out the year. If Pilio was a God and had truly obtained an avg. price of $3.50 in the 12 months following his initial purchase of FIU, you can BET that he would have unloaded at $7 and doubled his money. The fact that he didn't and now finds himself with an even larger number of shares, means that his avg. cost was probably closer to $5-$6.

IN 2010, FIU opens at 2.30 and closes the year at 1.35 hitting a low of .74 in November. Most of the year, it is trading at over $1. Let's say, Pilio doubles down AGAIN at an avg of $1 (I know, highly improbable you say, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt). His avg cost is now around $3.

IN 2011, FIU opens at 1.30 and drifts down all the way to .16, hitting .20 in October and .16 in December. Let's say Pilio doubles down AGAIN at .50! He now has a TON of shares with an avg cost of 1.75.

Therefore, even if Pilio QUADRUPLED DOWN at .15 his average cost would be .47.

Now, why would Pilio QUADRUPLE down at .15 after having doubled down and averaged down from $10 all the way down to .$50 for 4 years and then vote YES to .15???????

If Pilio didn't buy HUGE at .15, his avg costs CANNOT be at under $1.00. It is a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY. And we all know he didn't buy huge at .15 because he has nothing to gain if he plans to vote YES.

Therefore, if Pilio's average cost is over $1.00, he is losing about $1.00 per share right now, which means he is down $1.2 million dollars.

Are we supposed to believe that he is voting YES to the deal to save himself $180K on his 1.2 million shares???? Even if his avg cost is .85 (an impossibility) he still loses .70 x 1.2m = $840k buy voting yes.

He would be voting YES to lose $840,000 for sure in order to save the last $180,000??????? And this after buying HUGE at .15????????

PLEASE!!!

Pilio, you sir, are a JOKE and a TROLL. You gave yourself away with the 1.2 million shares in 4 years. The math does not lie. I don't need to know what you bought when. If you bought 4 years ago, there are mathematical laws which you cannot escape no matter what you do and how you average down given FIU's trading chart.

Folks, Pilio is not a shareholder. He is a shill put here by our opponents to disrupt and discourage. There are companies out there who get hired and paid to go on blogs and message boards, to comment on news articles and to attempt to create an opinion or image online. He is an image maker, hired to push an agenda favorable to the Anglo deal because we are starting to make waves. 

 

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>