Posted elsewhere. In Chimera’s case, I don’
Post# of 4611
(Total Views: 241)
Posted On: 07/23/2018 4:18:50 AM
Posted elsewhere.
Quote:
In Chimera’s case, I don’t know because I didn’t follow their stock. But in Amarantus’ case, naked shorts were forced to cover big time (over 10M shares in volume on the day of CUSIP # change). This example refutes your claim that NS don’t need to cover.
Money for lawyer fees and website redesign was required for such change. If Leo’s purpose was just to change the name, that would be irresponsible to dilute shareholders at a critical time when the SP was low and money would be better to spend on trials. I commend Leo for not annoucing the real purpose of the change. You said the name better reflects the pipeline. I disagree and say trial data reflect the pipeline’s real value. Just the name alone won’t get you a partnership.
Instead of discrediting the OTC market experts, you should provide a credible source on why NS don’t need to cover. Same for Reg SHO Data. When you showed you IPIX isn’t on the threshold list (no significant FTD positions for at least five days), you said NS are good at hiding their crimes. When I asked you how come there are 45 companies listed if NS are good at hiding their crimes, you said no one is perfect.
It’s okay to give someone credit for making a good point or argument. You said you are biased on this issue so I don’t expect you to ever admit you are wrong. I’m open-minded on this issue. If you can actually provide some proofs relative to IPIX (not just in general), I would be happy to admit you are right. Widely accepted theories all have indisputable facts.
(0)
(0)