With all due respect, there are many fallacies in your reasoning. Although I respect the great job you've done fighting the bashers elsewhere, and the excellent due diligence you've posted, I think you're wrong this time.
For starters, you cannot conclude that there is no evidence of naked shorting because you THINK that Sullivan would initiate a lawsuit if so. You are basing a conclusion on an assumption that you cannot make, and which is unlikely.
Have you ever talked to a lawyer? Do you think that one would want to work for free? Or do you think that IPIX would have to foot the bill? That's what I think, and I think that Leo would rather wait until the company is flush with cash before shelling out the bucks for a lawsuit that will take years to work its way through the courts.
That's not to say that there won't be a lawsuit. I would be surprised if Mako and the hangers-on were NOT sued in the not-too-distant future.
But if I were the CEO of this company, I would wait to commence legal action with my resources. I would instead put all of the money toward the clinical trials, while deferring action on the lawsuit.
Look at the ABSSSI trial being delayed for that very reason -- efficient use of resources.
So, I completely disagree with your Sullivan contention. There is not a shred of evidence to back it up.
• "selling pressure by Aspire/Aruda." I don't think that an average of 8 million shares a year sold by Aspire can account for the suppression of share price, given that average daily volume has been 270,000, and because I know of large shareholders who have accumulated millions of shares in the past year. The Aruda selling was done years ago, and if he has sold more shares, it is not a huge amount. With the widely-ranging volumes we've seen (some days close to half a million shares), 8 or 10 million shares would NOT keep the price down here. And, those large offers that disappear when someone puts in a bid at that price indicate that there is dishonest activity aimed at scaring investors who look at the so-called Level 2. That's not real selling, when an offer goes away when someone tries to take it.
• as far as "no immediate catalyst," Leo has often surprised people with the timing of his announcements. I agree that if a date had been announced for clinical trial results, there might be a run-up in share price. But since NO date has been announced, I think it would be the height of stupidity for someone to assume that there could not be an announcement.
I remind people that 1/3 of today's volume was in the last 45 minutes. There were a number of large trades. Someone was either covering tens of thousands of short shares, or was establishing/adding to a long position.
Frankly, I hope that there is a large short position. It will fuel a mammoth short squeeze upon the next good news.
• daytraders. Yes, I agree that some are doing that. We know that market makers (who look at the ACTUAL Level 2 and Level 3 books, unlike the garbage data that we get) will do something like manipulate the bid and ask so that someone pays a high price -- they sell to them, and then take it down, and when they can, they buy at the lower price. Those pennies on the spread certainly do account for some of the volume. Daytraders are doing some of that kind of trading.
But that really has nothing to do with the current share price. They would trade for pennies (or nickels or dimes) like this if the stock were trading at 5.00, or 500.00. In fact, it's a lot easier to do this with a higher-priced stock.
And as far as shares sitting there for a long time -- lots of us have learned that the market makers are going to screw us, so we put in bids at lowball prices. Sometimes we get filled, sometimes we don't.
I was filled today at a low price, and someone else told me about his bid, which was NEVER shown on the "Level 2" either at otcmarkets or at my broker -- but then I saw the volume come in when he WAS filled.
So, just because we buyers have become wiser about how to accumulate this stock, it doesn't mean that all the buyers are tapped out. It means we're tired of being suckers.
For starters, you cannot conclude that there is no evidence of naked shorting because you THINK that Sullivan would initiate a lawsuit if so. You are basing a conclusion on an assumption that you cannot make, and which is unlikely.
Have you ever talked to a lawyer? Do you think that one would want to work for free? Or do you think that IPIX would have to foot the bill? That's what I think, and I think that Leo would rather wait until the company is flush with cash before shelling out the bucks for a lawsuit that will take years to work its way through the courts.
That's not to say that there won't be a lawsuit. I would be surprised if Mako and the hangers-on were NOT sued in the not-too-distant future.
But if I were the CEO of this company, I would wait to commence legal action with my resources. I would instead put all of the money toward the clinical trials, while deferring action on the lawsuit.
Look at the ABSSSI trial being delayed for that very reason -- efficient use of resources.
So, I completely disagree with your Sullivan contention. There is not a shred of evidence to back it up.
• "selling pressure by Aspire/Aruda." I don't think that an average of 8 million shares a year sold by Aspire can account for the suppression of share price, given that average daily volume has been 270,000, and because I know of large shareholders who have accumulated millions of shares in the past year. The Aruda selling was done years ago, and if he has sold more shares, it is not a huge amount. With the widely-ranging volumes we've seen (some days close to half a million shares), 8 or 10 million shares would NOT keep the price down here. And, those large offers that disappear when someone puts in a bid at that price indicate that there is dishonest activity aimed at scaring investors who look at the so-called Level 2. That's not real selling, when an offer goes away when someone tries to take it.
• as far as "no immediate catalyst," Leo has often surprised people with the timing of his announcements. I agree that if a date had been announced for clinical trial results, there might be a run-up in share price. But since NO date has been announced, I think it would be the height of stupidity for someone to assume that there could not be an announcement.
I remind people that 1/3 of today's volume was in the last 45 minutes. There were a number of large trades. Someone was either covering tens of thousands of short shares, or was establishing/adding to a long position.
Frankly, I hope that there is a large short position. It will fuel a mammoth short squeeze upon the next good news.
• daytraders. Yes, I agree that some are doing that. We know that market makers (who look at the ACTUAL Level 2 and Level 3 books, unlike the garbage data that we get) will do something like manipulate the bid and ask so that someone pays a high price -- they sell to them, and then take it down, and when they can, they buy at the lower price. Those pennies on the spread certainly do account for some of the volume. Daytraders are doing some of that kind of trading.
But that really has nothing to do with the current share price. They would trade for pennies (or nickels or dimes) like this if the stock were trading at 5.00, or 500.00. In fact, it's a lot easier to do this with a higher-priced stock.
And as far as shares sitting there for a long time -- lots of us have learned that the market makers are going to screw us, so we put in bids at lowball prices. Sometimes we get filled, sometimes we don't.
I was filled today at a low price, and someone else told me about his bid, which was NEVER shown on the "Level 2" either at otcmarkets or at my broker -- but then I saw the volume come in when he WAS filled.
So, just because we buyers have become wiser about how to accumulate this stock, it doesn't mean that all the buyers are tapped out. It means we're tired of being suckers.
7
2
