Wrong. The company can fail and GHS will make money. Their confidence lies in their own ability to sell the shares they get (at either a 20% or 37% discount) quickly enough to turn a profit. That is what they are presently doing and soon will have mitigated all of their risk exposure. The equity funding deal is fundamentally toxic to shareholders and leaves hardly any means of loss for GHS.
Without financing we wouldn't be having this discussion. This company would've folded a month ago. Financing was critical. Besides, I can't see GHS selling their shares at the current prices.
The buy and hold, long and strong mantra's are exactly what brought the upside down, financially committed to this point. A little bit of taking profits on spikes over the past couple of years and most who are presently sitting on big losses would not be in that predicament. Also, what makes you believe that the current prices are rock bottom? It's my opinion we've got a ways to go before we see a reversal.
Wrong. What brought this stock down is the investors who were dreaming of lollipops, boats, and new cars when the stock was at 15-16 cents. Most probably invested money they could not afford to lose. They've been panic selling for weeks now. Buy and Hold was exactly the right thing to do. Until you sell, all losses are just paper losses. Once you sell, your loss becomes real. Flipping stock to take those small gains is great in hindsight, but in reality, never works.
No, look at it this way. Why not salvage what you can by selling now. You get to take a tax loss and you will have the option to re-enter at what I believe will be a much lower price. There is virtually little chance of a reversal before they get to a point of product launch, so your tax loss will stand having met the 30 day standard. If you re-enter with all that you took out, you will have many more shares which will take less of a reversal to make you whole. On the other hand, if the company fails, you have at least extracted some of your cash. So, continue the hold strategy that brought you here, or take a proactive position with your money. Wouldn't you rather go down with a fight than a whimper.
In my mind, selling out is going down with a whimper. Especially if you sell and give up 90% of your investment. I don't see how you could possibly buy back in with all you took out and end up with many more shares then you left with. Buy back in at a lower price? I would rather buy at a lower price while retaining all my stock. (there's not a lot of downside left anyway.)Sure, it could fall to .001 or .002, but what if it doesn't? I'd rather be holding all my shares when it starts back up. Besides, tax loss in Canada isn't all it's made out to be. You still get screwed. Maybe it's different in the USA.
Averaging down only makes sense if a reversal were imminent and/or readily able to forecast. Lacking that, averaging down looks a lot like putting good money after bad.
I believe they can only stay under one cent for a limited time before losing their OTC rating. My thinking is that the stock will quite likely be propped up quite soon to keep it above the required limit. If that happens, people who sell now with the hopes of getting back in at a lower SP later will be paying a higher and not lower price. Personally, two weeks ago my break even point was .085 and now it's .034 from averaging down. Sure it's a risk. But this whole thing with RMHB is a risk and has been from the beginning. I like my chances better now of at least getting my money back and perhaps making a good profit. It doesn't even have to reach five cents in order to do that. I'm being proactive in my own way.
If they are bankrupt, they are bankrupt. What happens to the principles has no impact on YOU fighting for YOUR MONEY.
Wrong. A company can't make false claims in order to stay viable and in doing so, mislead investors. If they say they have hired all these great people, and are coming up with a great new brand it better be true. If they say they're borrowed money to market and sell the product, they better be doing it. I've been involved in two class action law suit where companies made thinks rosy and were essentially lying to investors while they skimmed all the money they could out of them. Wouldn't you rather go down with a fight than a whimper? Class action lawsuits cost nothing. The lawyers are paid only if the company is found guilty.
Without financing we wouldn't be having this discussion. This company would've folded a month ago. Financing was critical. Besides, I can't see GHS selling their shares at the current prices.
The buy and hold, long and strong mantra's are exactly what brought the upside down, financially committed to this point. A little bit of taking profits on spikes over the past couple of years and most who are presently sitting on big losses would not be in that predicament. Also, what makes you believe that the current prices are rock bottom? It's my opinion we've got a ways to go before we see a reversal.
Wrong. What brought this stock down is the investors who were dreaming of lollipops, boats, and new cars when the stock was at 15-16 cents. Most probably invested money they could not afford to lose. They've been panic selling for weeks now. Buy and Hold was exactly the right thing to do. Until you sell, all losses are just paper losses. Once you sell, your loss becomes real. Flipping stock to take those small gains is great in hindsight, but in reality, never works.
No, look at it this way. Why not salvage what you can by selling now. You get to take a tax loss and you will have the option to re-enter at what I believe will be a much lower price. There is virtually little chance of a reversal before they get to a point of product launch, so your tax loss will stand having met the 30 day standard. If you re-enter with all that you took out, you will have many more shares which will take less of a reversal to make you whole. On the other hand, if the company fails, you have at least extracted some of your cash. So, continue the hold strategy that brought you here, or take a proactive position with your money. Wouldn't you rather go down with a fight than a whimper.
In my mind, selling out is going down with a whimper. Especially if you sell and give up 90% of your investment. I don't see how you could possibly buy back in with all you took out and end up with many more shares then you left with. Buy back in at a lower price? I would rather buy at a lower price while retaining all my stock. (there's not a lot of downside left anyway.)Sure, it could fall to .001 or .002, but what if it doesn't? I'd rather be holding all my shares when it starts back up. Besides, tax loss in Canada isn't all it's made out to be. You still get screwed. Maybe it's different in the USA.
Averaging down only makes sense if a reversal were imminent and/or readily able to forecast. Lacking that, averaging down looks a lot like putting good money after bad.
I believe they can only stay under one cent for a limited time before losing their OTC rating. My thinking is that the stock will quite likely be propped up quite soon to keep it above the required limit. If that happens, people who sell now with the hopes of getting back in at a lower SP later will be paying a higher and not lower price. Personally, two weeks ago my break even point was .085 and now it's .034 from averaging down. Sure it's a risk. But this whole thing with RMHB is a risk and has been from the beginning. I like my chances better now of at least getting my money back and perhaps making a good profit. It doesn't even have to reach five cents in order to do that. I'm being proactive in my own way.
If they are bankrupt, they are bankrupt. What happens to the principles has no impact on YOU fighting for YOUR MONEY.
Wrong. A company can't make false claims in order to stay viable and in doing so, mislead investors. If they say they have hired all these great people, and are coming up with a great new brand it better be true. If they say they're borrowed money to market and sell the product, they better be doing it. I've been involved in two class action law suit where companies made thinks rosy and were essentially lying to investors while they skimmed all the money they could out of them. Wouldn't you rather go down with a fight than a whimper? Class action lawsuits cost nothing. The lawyers are paid only if the company is found guilty.
12
2
