| To: DashernComet who wrote (154) | 5/2/2019 6:51:25 PM | | From: Kevin Podsiadlik | | | | Wellll.... gonna kick myself if that was the top, but it's kinda random for it to die on the same no-news it ran up on, more than a week before quarterly. Still, I never plan to make a year off of a single trade, so in the greater scheme it's just one more ticker, just one I'm very familiar with.
We'll see where we are in a week or so. |
| | Research Frontiers Lonely Hearts Club Thread. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: DashernComet who wrote (156) | 5/14/2019 4:29:24 PM | | From: Kevin Podsiadlik | | | | No surprises, reduced operating losses came entirely from reduced operating expenses, which was the result of using stock options as currency. Disappointing that the market had to fall over the two weeks going into the report so that the shorting opportunity was not so good, but what are you gonna do.
Same time next quarter then? |
| | Research Frontiers Lonely Hearts Club Thread. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (159) | 7/30/2019 9:47:01 AM | | From: DashernComet | | | | This 33-year chart of REFR teaches a valuable lesson—the fact that a company has little or no chance of scaling up its technology does not mean a quick trip to zero. I am amazed at how many zombies I see still standing. PRKR stands out. One of the apparent inefficiencies of capitalism is when the stock market is up (“excessive exuberance”) any half-assed idea will get funded. When I sit in on early stage funding requests now, i feel a sense of, “I’ve seen this before” from the Dot-Com boom 20 years ago, when anyone that could “fog up a mirror” got funded. What a waste of resources. What does work about capitalism is the pendulum always swings back to correct inefficient uses of capital. |
| | Research Frontiers Lonely Hearts Club Thread. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (161) | 8/9/2019 11:17:09 AM | | From: Kevin Podsiadlik | | | | Took the L on the trade. Thesis was that the new buyers would actually expect something from the quarter but I guess as long as people are willing to support the stock I guess they don't care.
Check in again in November I guess. |
| | Research Frontiers Lonely Hearts Club Thread. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: DashernComet | 9/18/2019 5:33:13 PM | | | | | | 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. |
|
| | Research Frontiers Lonely Hearts Club Thread. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: DashernComet | 11/20/2019 9:48:01 PM | | | | | | So a new article has been posted on Seeking Alpha touting the opportunity in REFR.
seekingalpha.com
And this knucklehead is a “big stock guy” that “avoids small caps”.
So, he is a paid tout.
Season for Loss Capture on the “Dogs of 2019. So the folks that are stuck at $4.00 and up will be doing tax loss selling next month. Great timing on an article to pump this dead as a rock POS.
Product Price Regression to the mean is not a growth model that gets you To profitability. The “brag” in the article is the total volume of SPD year to day exceeds the volume of last year.....but the revenue is static with last year...SO MUCH WINNING.
AND OPERATING COSTS ARE THE SAME AS LAST YEAR.
And Joe H has to keep what is or IS NOT happening secret. No one has to tell REFR until they “do it” ( or could they just use SPD and not tell anybody? Sort of “you didn’t sin until you get caught?”
Sell short at anything around $3.50 and cover at $2.50 in late Dec. Then enjoy a very nice vacation in the cold winter months. |
| | Research Frontiers Lonely Hearts Club Thread. | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
