RE:RE:RE:RE:Cricketsno I agree with you that I think it has potential. But unlike you I think it has some wrinkles that need ironing. Personally I think it's value is where it should be for where it is. My gamble is for when they hit some milestones, if they hit some milestones. And yeah I agree it's wayyyyyy underpromoted. We differ in the reasons why it's underpromoted only.
mercedesman wrote: Inca2020 wrote: like... it's obviously so undervalued that there must be a conspiracy. So they make it look like the undervalued thing is a given that we shouldn't even debate... it's the 'whyyy is it undervalued'. When the real debate sits in the former.
daviking wrote: You got that right and a host of other aliases to boot, now and over the past few years.
And they talk about overburden! Love the chit-chat between them. LOL!
Pretty easy to recognize the similar writing styles even through the BS. Wish they would stop with the conspiracy laden posts and stick to relevant company news.
huhhh?
Of course - debate away on why you don't think it is undervalued at all. I'd be interested in your theory on that !
In the mantime, I'll simplify my theory for you.
No marketing = undervaluation.
Which begs the question...why would someone ("the powers that be") not want to market when it is a means to improving shareholder value (= fiduciary duty)
MM
PS while you are add it, if you feel it is not undervalued, why are you invested?