RE:RE:RE:RE:The Devil remains is in the detailsDavidRosenberg wrote: Walter333 wrote: Let's say they do, the only value realized by this company to date has been through the use of excessive promotion and self serving investments and dealings. You often complain about never pointing out the "positives", so if you would Mr Rosenberg name just one instance where this company, and any form of management have ever derived any true value through execution of said business plans.
When company is doing the right things stock is low
when the company is out partying in 2018 stock is high?
i dont know how to respond to this.
It's a completely new management team besides AD and Zeeshan
i know what your saying but i disagree with you - here are my valid points as well - smart money looks ahead not behind this is totally different management only zeeshan and anthony are the same but they didnt control the board thats why they had a proxy battle but nobody cares about that , what people like you and me want is stock price to go up - people who own little amounts of shares or are buying 1000 shares here or there doesn't really affect FSD Pharma stock price in my humble opinion. Just trying to be respectful in that sense i know 1000 shares could be alot to many people , including myself, but im trying to angle it from a institutional investors point of view. people that bought high around $70 as an example or $180 should have averaged down if they liked the companies new strategy with MS , depression etc. If only one of FSD Pharma's Drug candidates has any chance of success otherwise people should have just taken the tax loss - today was last day i believe for tax loss season. Now it's too late for 2021 tax loss. I guess time will tell good luck to all the longs. Cheers I’m talking about overall , FSD Pharma as a company what will make stock movement , good data from trials and institutional investors that buy at the market price
LOL, smart money is avoiding this name as clearly pointed out in holdings data. A couple tier 5 investment banks that probably have a relationship with AD. Again not for sure, but probably. DR, institutional investors require liquidity. The more shares they buy back (from a low float already) the less liquidity they have making is leas attractive to them. Couple that with a 50MM market cap, and it is too small for most. Small market cap and low liquidity is a bad combo for the folks you claiming to be looking forward. This is a fact. The managment team you claim to be better than the last is making a desperation move here to keep name listed (appears anyway) rather than attract new shareholders.