If I owned Stock in a company I would be open and honest discussing this stock as ownership does not make it a positive or a good investment. I would post simple fundamental truths regardless if they had a positive or negative effect on discussion. I was shaking my head laughing reading about posting positive things owning a stock. Please explain how personal retail ownership makes any difference or makes it a positive investment? Funny how 30 years of experience were also pumping this stock when it was trading in the .30's. Now that it's at a nickel it's accumulation. Somebody bought $15 today in a single transaction. Nobody is shorting this stock as nobody is following it. Volume is thin and float is massive which translates to pocket change.
Would anyone recommend this company to family and friends and only mention positive things regarding the company? Sounds pretty ethical or maybe lacking some integrity or morals. What's all that noise about informed consent? Just post the positives and ignore the rest as long as you make some money it's ok? Would most investors not want all the information and history before investing their money? Just post the positives if you own it? Still shaking my head at that one. So if it proves to be a poor investment just deny it and ignore truth and history so someone else buys it and you make some money?
Without balance it's pure spin and propaganda. Anyone know the person in this Vanity Fair article? Would you agree with the positive assessment?
@@@@ offers some insight into his friend’s combative style. “Many times people confuse winning and losing,” Wexner says. “###### has the unusual quality of knowing when he is winning. Whether in conversations or negotiations, he always stands back and lets the other person determine the style and manner of the conversation or negotiation. And then he responds in their style. #### sees it in chivalrous terms. He does not pick a fight, but if there is a fight, he will let you choose your weapon.”