(Total Views: 314)
Posted On: 11/09/2018 8:33:43 PM
Post# of 72440
That’s what he thinks. He could be wrong. There’s nothing wrong with making an argument and having others rebut. I don’t know if I agree with him but to believe the other theory you have to assume the MFO is acting honorably and according to the agreement.
In the end, I’m not sure what difference it makes, but it would be nice to know one way or another. Since there’s no evidence of massive share dilution (through Sept. 30) I tend to doubt the new dilution theory. What’s left?
-Naked shorting by nefarious doers (entirely possible considering the round the clock, relentless bash campaign. Who would do that unless there was financial gain?)
-Hedge shorting by the MoFO (possible, but unlikely according to Leo; plus the pattern existed long before the MoFO came on board, though the drop since then was extreme)
-Massive selling by disaffected longs (perhaps some, but there’s a pattern that can’t be explained by selling from disgruntled longs which would be more random)
Conclusion..l have no idea but since Leo and Bertolino are hanging in there I’m following.
Other options?
In the end, I’m not sure what difference it makes, but it would be nice to know one way or another. Since there’s no evidence of massive share dilution (through Sept. 30) I tend to doubt the new dilution theory. What’s left?
-Naked shorting by nefarious doers (entirely possible considering the round the clock, relentless bash campaign. Who would do that unless there was financial gain?)
-Hedge shorting by the MoFO (possible, but unlikely according to Leo; plus the pattern existed long before the MoFO came on board, though the drop since then was extreme)
-Massive selling by disaffected longs (perhaps some, but there’s a pattern that can’t be explained by selling from disgruntled longs which would be more random)
Conclusion..l have no idea but since Leo and Bertolino are hanging in there I’m following.
Other options?
(1)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
