Research Frontiers Lonely Hearts Club Thread. Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Research Frontiers Lonely Hearts Club Thread.

REFR 1.024

-1.5%

Apr 25 3:59 PM EDT

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: DashernComet

9/18/2019 5:33:13 PM

of 170

An old thought of mine from a July 2016 post that still remains pertinent.

When I lay out my case I (1) state facts or history and then I (2) layout what my prediction(s) for the future are
and then (3) what outcome(s) will support or not support what I have predicted. And attached to the predictions is a timeline.

Dixon's comments and replies are pure conjecture, it is only opinion that is neither supported by facts or testable (and that the CEO says something in a CC does not make what he says factual, the only fact is that he said something that he at that time represented as a fact--whether true or not). Moreover when Longs predicts something there is no test or time line that suggests by when her prediction will occur (that troublesome REFRspeak word, soon).

I believe that what Dixon, and others that do not agree with my posts, fail to understand is that some of us have a respect for integrity in what we do and say. Furthermore, we demand that integrity in others. And that we are irritated and annoyed when we accepted what someone in authority (the CEO in this case) said and then it becomes apparent that they either knowingly lied and misrepresented what they stated or were such charlatans to not explain that what they offered as facts were just hoped for conjecture under the slimy guise of Safe Harbor.

That I am long or short or just annoyed is immaterial to the case I make. The hard story is that this is a failed company under the simple tests of 1) negative growth in sales for 4 years 2) no internal rate of return on invested capital or profitability--constant cash burn 3) no demonstrated expansion in the markets use of the SPD product 4) no expansion in the film makers (i.e. in North America).

You state the Shorts are manipulating the stock, obviously walking it down you say, but you do not expect any reduction in the short interest? Why so much trouble if they are not covering?
Perhaps (just conjecture now, just like the Happy Board folks) what is really brewing here is a Long Squeeze where sellers of Puts are getting hung with shares they do not want to own or can ill afford.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next