Losing (or Making) Money On Misinformation

Long-time readers should note some significant changes in how I communicate in the public domain. The primary purpose of this forum is now to attract new contacts with professional industry expertise to share research and receive feedback (confirmation / refutation) regarding my investment theses.

Accordingly, this document should not be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of the companies or securities discussed herein. I am not an investment advisor and this is not an investment thesis. It is merely one part of the story, which I present for debate in hopes of determining all risks and upside potential. The disclosure at the end of this piece is critical to understanding the content of this document. Further, I frequently trade my positions and may buy, sell, or short the securities mentioned herein at any time, regardless of the facts or perceived implications of this article.


Losing (or Making) Money On Misinformation


One of my mentors is one of the best opportunistic traders I’ve ever encountered.

In my early days of investing (back in the early 90s), I would be astounded by how he could read an earnings press release and say something like, “The stock is down 10% in after-hours, but it’s going to be up 5% tomorrow.”

The next day, I would watch as the stock slowly creep its way up throughout the day and finish up. It might not be exactly 5% as he predicted, but it was usually very close.

I didn’t realize it at the time, but he wasn’t a magician. He was simply good (actually, great) at looking at a situation and knowing how the stock should react to it.

Most investors are not good at this. It’s not their fault. Most investors don’t have the 6+ years of education (undergrad, business school, CFA courses, etc), plus the real-world experience of working in a firm surrounded by the sharpest investing minds (who were trained by the sharpest investing minds).

Imagine how much better you would be if you had that advantage.

Unfortunately, it’s all too common for investors to misinterpret incoming information (or get misinformed) and end up making the wrong move.

This is most common with small cap stocks. With larger caps, more professionals are involved. They’re pretty good and pretty quick at digesting, analyzing, and reacting to incoming information. That’s the result of 6+ years of education and countless years of training/experience.

Small cap trading is often dominated by retail investors. Professionals are often managing or influencing the decision-making on billions of dollars. Most can’t be bothered with companies worth less than $200 million (roughly the threshold for being in the Russell 2000).

As a result, misinterpretation and misinformation runs rampant.

This has been a panacea for yours truly. I’ve made millions by taking advantage of this problem (even as I do my part to counteract it).

Those of you who have followed my HMNY research know this. For months I’ve been warning about the dilutive rounds of funding that would be coming. For me, it was easy to see and analyze. Quantitative data was abundant, as was the SEC filing that revealed the CEO’s bonus plan.

From that, I has a sense of what direction he would be taking the company… and I knew it wasn’t going to be good for shareholders.

The stock was around $12 at the time and I’ve been warning investors to avoid the stock ever since. Since then, things have played out almost exactly as I predicted… right down to the pricing I expected for this weeks round of funding:

Next Round R2 R3
Pre-Deal Stock Price  $            4.00  $      2.38  $      1.42
Deal Price (w/warrants)  $            2.80  $      1.67  $      0.99
Money Raised ($M)  $             100  $       100  $       100
Shares Issued (M)                35.7          60.0        100.9
Post Deal Stock Price  $            2.38  $      1.42  $      0.84

As you can see, I wasn’t 100% on target (especially about the amount raised), but everything else was pretty close… more than enough to justify selling the shares before Wednesday night’s news broke.

It’s not luck! It’s education, training, and experience… I thank God (and my mentors) for having put me in the position to receive it.

It’s not always as easy as HMNY. However, a few times per year, it is… and that’s enough for me to earn 7-figures of annual pre-tax income.

By the way, pay heed to the R2 and R3 columns above. As I reported yesterday, I foresee another $200 million of dilutive funding coming before the end of July. Barring a major change in the company’s direction, the chart above depicts what I think might happen to the stock in the months ahead.

By the way, you can get good at this too !

I was once a terrible investor. If not for my mentors, I’d probably still be terrible at it. If the proper training could turn me into a success, there’s surely hope for most of you.

There are three things that I did / do… and you can too:

1. Find and pay heed to a group of experienced professional investors. If you think that I do this all on my own, you’re crazy. One of my mentors is still nearly as invaluable to me as he was on day 1. Yes, I’ve learned a lot, but two knowledgeable heads are always more powerful than one.

2. Ignore most of what you see on the chat boards. Professionals don’t spend much time on StockTwits, Twitter, Yahoo, etc, except to scour the haystack for a few golden needles of information. Most of the people on the chat boards do not have professional training. Listening to what most of them have to say will only cause you to make mistakes. Instead, you should…

3. Invest time into learning how to read earnings releases, transcripts, financial statements, and SEC filings. It’s not easy, but building these skills is the easiest way to gain a critical advantage over the average investor. After all, who wants to be average?

FYI, in addition to my call on HMNY, I also provided some insight into an SEC filing that was released by SMSI yesterday (I’ve reprinted the analysis below).

In short, it was a standard filing to register shares issued in one of the company’s last rounds of funding. Registering the shares simply makes them available to be traded in the public markets. In fact, the filing states:

“We are registering the shares of common stock in order to permit the selling stockholders to offer the shares for resale from time to time.”

Had I participated in the round, my name would have been on the list of “selling shareholders” too… because that’s how an SEC form 424b3 is filed!

Anyone could figure this out, simply by going to Investopedia, where it says:

“The Securities Exchange Act of 1933 was created to help investors make informed decisions by requiring securities issuers to complete and file registration statements (including financial and material information) with the SEC before making an issue available for purchase by the public.”


I provided a link to my analysis on Facebook, Twitter, and StockTwits. Despite this, there were people who posted things like this (name removed, because I don’t want to single anyone out)…


This person thought that the 424b3 filing was a signal that a bunch of shares of SMSI were about to be sold. He/she believed that it was a sign that something was wrong at SMSI.

I can understand that line of thinking. However, this person clearly didn’t understand the purpose of a 424b3 filing. Instead of asking, he/she ended up spreading misinformation to other investors. Heck, for all we know, it could have been done intentionally to push the price down so he/she could buy.

Either way, the answer to these questions were all answered in my report. Yet, some investors got head-faked into selling in the AM. The stock spent the rest of the day climbing back, as opportunistic investors (including me) took advantage of the misinterpretation and misinformation.


Those who made the right move had the choice of keeping the shares or selling in the afternoon for an easy profit. That’s always a nice choice to have.

The lesson is simple — Wall Street is full of sharks. Some just swim around eating the fish, but and some go after the people. Gotta be careful.



Appendix: SMSI “Offering” Reprint

Did SMSI Announce An Offering?  In a word, “NO!”. This morning’s SEC filing simply registers the shares that SMSI issued in a previous offering. This is normal, was expected, and isn’t news. This is pretty clear from reading the filing, but many folks are either too busy, lazy, or daunted to read them.

In conjunction with this morning’s filing, many folks are wondering why SMSI is pulling back instead of shooting straight toward its 52-week high of $3+. There are a few reasons, most of which can be tied back (directly or indirectly) to the filing:

1. The stock dropped more than 5% this morning. I saw many posts inferring that it’s a new offering.

2. That drop broke the stock below the flag formation (a technical chart pattern) that I expected to form. Those who trade of technicals may have chosen to sell out. This is why I don’t like technicals — they cause people to make the wrong fundamental move in favor of a technical move (and miss out on profits, as a result).

Back in the early-90s, I learned this the hard way. Nonetheless, many people still focus on technicals, so I keep an eye on them. For those interested, here’s how I see it now:


Assuming that their recent business momentum continues, I still expect the stock to make its way toward the upper end of this risk/reward channel.

3. Some of the investors who participated in the offering were clearly in it for the quick buck. You could see it in SMSI’s trading action when the deal was announced. The offering involved about 3 million shares and the stock traded 3 million shares over the 3 days that followed.

For the record, I strongly believe that this is the source of the 700,000 share spike in short interest that occurred in March. Participating shareholders often short a stock against the shares they purchase in an offering. They are not supposed to do this, but it produces a quick-flip profit, so many find sneaky ways to do it without getting caught.

In any case, what we’re seeing in the stock now is a normal shifting of ownership from quick-flip shareholders to those who are excited by the story. Assuming SMSI’s business momentum continues, the latter should soon overwhelm the latter, leading to the next leg up in the shares.

In the meantime, I’ve been buying some more shares almost every day since April 11, including today. In fact, the only day that I haven’t bought more shares was Tuesday, when I spent the day volunteer-coaching athletes on the Miami Beach High School Track & Field team 🙂


It adds up to 33,500 shares over the course of the past 8 days. It doesn’t put a dent in my overall portfolio but it’s a welcome addition to the 100s of 1000s of shares of SMSI that I already own.



Up Next: Could SMSI Become A Ten Bagger (Again)?


More Research:


To get my posts in real-time, just follow/subscribe to this free blog.

If you only want to receive my most critical reports, simply sign up for my MailChimp mailing list instead. If you’re on that list, you will only get key articles and occasional recaps of all the work I’ve recently done.


Disclosures / Disclaimers: I am long SMSI. However, this is not a solicitation to buy, sell, or otherwise transact any stock or its derivatives. Nor should it be construed as an endorsement of any particular investment or opinion of the stock’s current or future price. To be clear, I do not encourage or recommend for anyone to follow my lead on this or any other stocks, since I may enter, exit, or reverse a position at any time without notice, regardless of the facts or perceived implications of this article.

I am not a financial advisor. Nor am I providing any recommendations, price targets, or opinions about valuation regarding the companies discussed herein. Any disclosures regarding my holdings are true as of the time this article is written, but subject change without notice. I frequently trade my positions, often on an intraday basis. Thus, it is possible that I might be buying and/or selling the securities mentioned herein and/or its derivative at any time, regardless of (and possibly contrary to) the content of this article.

I undertake no responsibility to update my disclosures and they may therefore be inaccurate thereafter.  Likewise, any opinions are as of the date of publication, and are subject to change without notice and may not be updated. I believe that the sources of information I use are accurate but there can be no assurance that they are. All investments carry the risk of loss and the securities mentioned herein may entail a high level of risk. Investors considering an investment should perform their own research and consult with a qualified investment professional.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am receiving no compensation for it, nor do I have a business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. The information in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice or as a recommendation regarding any particular security or course of action.

The primary purpose of this blog/forum is to attract new contacts with professional industry expertise to share research and receive feedback (confirmation / refutation) regarding my investment theses.

68 thoughts on “Losing (or Making) Money On Misinformation

  1. I know we have to take Ted’s words with a massive grain of salt but the most recent ATM filing says the $150mm ATM will take them through the remainder of 2018, so they are forecasting only needing half of what you project. They do highlight that doesn’t account for any acquisitions that may take place, but I think your numbers exclude that too


    1. Anonymous,

      I think Mark may be right in terms of HMNY requiring 300M more capital. However, a theory I had is HMNY/MP may try to hold off until Aug 15, 2018 using a combination of

      1. Cash on hand,
      2. 30M + 150M being raised,
      3. And limitations on movie going (i.e, new 4 movie/month ‘promo’ with iheart).

      Once Aug 15 hits, MP’s existing shareholders (Chris, Lowe, Stacie, etc), may try to raise money by selling their stakes at significantly higher valuations than what HMNY is giving them (around 290M from their latest filing if i recall correctly).

      This is more along the lines of speculation, but thought I’d share 🙂


      1. #3 is the only viable solution. Everything else has already been accounted for in my modeling and thinking.

        If they make a major change to the usage terms, I will immediately adjust my numbers. Until then, it should be assumed that they will need a total of $200+ million by the end of July which accounts for the cash on hand and the proceeds of this latest $30M.

        Don’t make the mistake of being hopeful optimistic. That’s what got a lot of people into trouble today. Everyone likes to say “what if”, but “what if” has NOT ONCE come with these guys.


      2. What is funny is I actually believe this will work in reverse. a 4 ticket limit will drive more usage than unlimited would. I think the 89% will think of those 4 per month as a “use it or lose it” deal and make a point of trying to use their 4 tickets. I think with unlimited, the 89% would not worry about it so much knowing that they can always make up for only going to 1 movie this month by going to more next month. Then next month becomes the month after and so on. What else does it do? It may slow growth some since it is no longer the sexy “unlimited” offer. Finally, I think the churn will be higher. Many of the cheaper and more casual users they want will see the offer, sign up for it and gorge on their 4 movies for 90 days and then they’re done. They’ve had enough for a while. I know I am again hypothesizing while they are doing it to collect real data to see what happens, but I would almost bet that their data will show what I am saying here.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. They already say most people front load the first few months, so probably no change there BUT it will stop the 30 movie binging type & those who try to fraud the system! So should be a net positive, and for those who continue to sign up, life eventually gets busy and months will happen where u won’t max out the 4 anyway


          1. Right… and they know EXACTLY how many people are going to 5, 15, or even 25 movies. I suspect this cap is a test to see how it impacts signups and renewals.


          2. I get that. I guess it depends on how many tickets that saves from the 11%. Example: If it brings the 11% average from 6 to 4 yet drives the 89 average from 2 to 3 then that could drive overall usage up. That is my point.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Also when you buy a 90 day plan it feels more temporary. 4 tix over the next 3 months. I would expect churn from those to be higher. Overall I do not like this promotion.


          4. That’s how to think about 👍🏼 from there, you are entitled to your opinion on which numbers to plug-in… what you have to do the math on the weighted average, as you just pointed out.


    2. I am not going to account in my model for anything that requires significant change to the business.

      So far, my model has been much more accurate than ANYONE’s analysis, including Ted (who, a few weeks ago said “I probably shouldn’t say this but we won’t need any more funding”).

      I believe me (due to the 25 years of training and experience I received to prepare for situations like this). I’m no genius. I’m just following the instruction book. It works! 🙌🏼


      1. Mark. I am curious. How certain are you that Ted said that and how he said it, context, etc.? I am not asking to challenge you. I am genuinely curious and trying to reconcile/compare several recent statements Ted has made to events or results that have actually occurred.


      2. This basically sums up what you are dealing with in Ted. Then he follows that comment up with, “we won’t need any more funding” beyond our original shelf. Ted can’t be trusted. He seems to always be talking out of both sides of his mouth.

        “Ted (who, a few weeks ago said “I probably shouldn’t say this but we won’t need any more funding”


  2. To change the subject for a quick question. Why have so many shares been sold short in SMSI the last few days? Someone on a message board posted a site that shows short sales and the last few days it has been way over 50 percent of shares traded.


  3. The other marginal benefit of MoviePass moving to limit its plan to 4 movies a month is that the big chains (AMC, Regal, Cinemark) complained how $9.95 a month for 30 movies completely devalued their collective businesses. So while we know the big 3 are stubborn to negotiate with MP, this new offering is a step closer to appeasing them even if the main reason MP did it was to limit cash burn. Again, this in no way means there will be a deal soon with the big 3, but it does add to the debate.


    1. If you believe that is the reason they don’t want to do a deal then that makes sense. I think that is AMC’s stated opposition, but the truth is they want their customers loyal to AMC, not MP. They do not wish to give up that power to MP.


      1. 100% correct. “Someone” Is great at gathering in contributing data, but needs a lot of work at analyzing it. No offense buddy.

        You have a lot of potential, but need to learn a lot more about how to properly weight data points. I can’t continue allowing non-professional comments, not debating / correction them. Gotta step up!


          1. 😂😂 Point taken, but “Marginal” information doesn’t belong here. Time is money, so we need to focus on factors that can actually make a difference.

            Posting marginal information also fosters confirmation bias in the minds of those who are reading these posts.… and as you know, I am a vocal enemy of confirmation bias / vanguard of teaching proper research habits to the masses.


        1. I was trying to be nicer by gently correcting “someone’s” view. 🙂 But let me add that I believe MP is on their own about discounts at least until they are at 10 million subs AND the company would almost surely have to considered financially stable by then. It would not surprise me if it takes even longer to 20 million subs. Finally, if I haven’t said it enough already, I HATE the 4 tix per month for 90 day plan. Behavioral economics tells me that it will backfire and lead to hire churn and more usage. This is my very strong opinion and I am perplexed that these smart guys like Mitch and Ted are not thinking the same way.


          1. One point that should be made is that a significant amount of sweat equity is being built up (albeit at the expense of common shareholders). Some believe that the company could eventually go bankrupt, but I believe if Management chooses, they can substantially scale back the business to be profitable and remain viable.

            That won’t be a good outcome for current shareholders, but it does quell that risk. Bankruptcy typically requires the company to default on debt. HMNY doesn’t have substantial debt to speak of.


  4. Mark – curious about your thoughts on Bob’s piece about patents. I know this won’t impact any short-term cash needs and their is no guarantee they can enforce payment for these BUT it’s definitely a good read (and I’ll even add a short & medium-term weighting of only .000000000000000000001). One point I’ll touch on from this article is that I think they should absolutely limit viewers to see any given movie only once (for multiple reasons) – http://bobvisse.com/moivepass-patent-contains-broad-claims-that-span-well-beyond-theaters/


    1. Honestly, I don’t know think about it. It really takes a patent expert to understand the value of these things. I will say that it is generally difficult to unlock the value of patent, but that doesn’t add any value towards answering your question. 🤷🏻‍♂️

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Agree with your point about how to tackle usage. If I were running the company I would want to test in this order:
      1. Limit seeing 1 movie only once.
      2. Raise price $2 to $3 monthly (there needs to be a discount to pay annually up front so they can market that price point)
      3. Make a 2nd pricing tier for heavy users.
      In addition to testing these, they need family, couples and premium plans AND
      Doing this usage limit would be the last thing I would test only if I were desperate and had tried everything else. My opinion.


      1. Agree on everything except I don’t mind having movie limits for the general users, even if it pinches the overall marketing message. Once/if they become self sustainable in the future, they can always revisit unlimited.


      2. With existing customers, raising the price might be easier than changing the terms of the service (monthly limits). There may be laws that govern this (bait and switch), but I don’t know enough to say anything for sure.


        1. Agree. Raising price much easier. But even before you that just simply cap each movie as viewable only once and test that first.

          The only other thing I forgot to mention is I like the idea of a premium for seeing a blockbuster movie on opening weekend. That would still allow “unlimited” advertising, but truly push some MP subs to the following week or weekend. There is a lot more detail to how I would do all this, but trying just to hit the highlights.


      3. Lowe is on record stating that a higher price point won’t work. Hence, the $9.95 being key. Notice also on their website, the pricing changed from $29.95 to $9.95 with an asterisk. Adding family, couples, and premium plans are variables that can drive up usage/churn. So I believe they will hold off on these plans until they are more cash flow neutral or really close to it.


    1. Looks like advertising for a single movie. Running the math, I estimate that this could add about $500K of high-margin revenue per month. I have adjusted my model accordingly.

      Obviously doesn’t put too much of a dent in the $80 million that I expect them to lose per month through year-end, barring any major changes to the business model.


  5. So back to the topic of “misinformation”, the number of news sites running with the “concerns of future profitability” boilerplate statement in HMNY’s 10-K is mind boggling to me. Any growth company has that text, Spotify for example.


    I assume it is because MP has the attention of “entertainment” writers and not analysts but still irresponsible in my opinion.


    1. it’s not just because of MP has the attention of “entertainment” writers. There is just a lot of negative sentiment regarding MP, and this blog is another addition to the bearish club. The overall story is that many and most (analysts and non-analysts) are betting on an MP failure.


  6. Mark,

    Good job on being accurate with the prediction! Intelligent readers can deduce that on their own.

    On a related note, based on my research, I have a strong feeling one or more of the following will happen in the near future:

    1. Partnership with a bank/payment partner
    2. Partnership with a utility application – venmo and splitwise type
    3. Partnership with a phone/call provider (might or might not be Verizon)

    This doesn’t solve the cash crunch but I’m on the lookout for one of these clicking and creating subscriber critical mass.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Just hit the tape:

    Pursuant to Section 253 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, so long as Helios owns shares representing at least 90% of each class of stock of MoviePass entitled to vote , Helios will have the right to effectuate a merger of MoviePass with Helios without a vote of the board of directors or stockholders of MoviePass. MoviePass has only common stock outstanding. Helios is currently evaluating the terms and conditions upon which it may effectuate such a merger with MoviePass. If Helios elects to effectuate such a merger with MoviePass, Helios plans to structure the merger such that MoviePass would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Helios. If the merger consideration in such a merger consists of common stock or securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock of Helios, Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635 may require a Helios stockholder vote to effectuate the merger.


    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yep. Debating what this means, but it appears that either

      1. Ted just told Mitch and the MP board he is taking over whether they like it or not
      2. Ted and Mitch together are telling Chris Kelly to deal or else.

      There could be another explanation, but those are my thoughts as it seems they can’t agree on terms otherwise this would not be necessary. This has the potential to get messy, but then what else should we expect from this soap opera?


      1. In my opinion, Ben inaccurately predicted inner problems between HMNY and MP. His sources led him astray on that. It is extremely easy to know that Chris Kelly is on board, and has been on board since last summer. You think HMNY was able to obtain a whopping 91.8% with a bunch of Board members being against a merger? It’s just quite unlikely. Ben isn’t on the MP Board.


        1. I don’t claim to know the details, but something is wrong. Missed the IPO on March 31st and now this? HMNY will force a full acquisition under Delaware law? No PR. Released late on a Friday after the market closed? You really think everybody is in agreement? I seriously doubt it. This looks ugly all the way around.


          1. Yes, because how else could HMNY own up to 91.8%. The majority is clearly on board. Also HMNY CEO mentioned at least a week ago, there will be no IPO and rather a name change from HMNY to basically MP.


          2. Actually he said he did not have time to do it. Every time they are asked they dodge the question. Why do they keep selling it in small chunks? Obviously they would rather IPO. I already laid out the facts above. All you have to do is read the filing to know what you are saying is incorrect. I guess you either agree or you don’t.


          3. I’m with Brad on this. Anyone who wants to debate this topic really ought to be educated with the evidence first. Picking stocks isn’t an opinion contest. 😂

            I hoped that would become clear from my repartee with Ben. We competed on facts until we both had 99% of the facts, and therefore agreed on what the facts were. We simply disagreed on the outcome… and that’s OK.

            Gather all the facts (which many here are good at) and then let’s debate what they mean. That’s how professional investing is done. 👍🏼


          4. Brad, it does not matter that Ted said he/they didn’t have time for an IPO. The point is just that there will be no IPO. That was all I stated. It’s possible that some aren’t in agreement, but what’s clear by HMNY’s 91.8% ownership is that the majority is on board with the plan. And rather the remaining 8.1% may not be on board (and even on that you’d only be guessing). None of us know for sure because we aren’t insiders.


          5. Not sure what you mean by 8.1% may not be on board, but the board of directors would have to approve a buyout from HMNY. I get it. You think they approve. I do not. Let’s just agree that we disagree and move on. I am sure we will hear more about it next week and then you can come back here and acknowledge that I was right. 🙂


          1. Every player has their strengths! The best circles in which I participate are founded on that principle. Everyone can learn from each other’s strengths, while demonstrating theirs.

            You’d be surprised what Knowledge gets transferred. Most pros won’t even try to educate because retail investors come with the flaw of thinking they know a lot more than they do.

            It’s part of the reason I ebb and flow. Dealing with the overconfident undereducated is frustrating and time consuming. Finding new pro contacts is MUCH more fruitful (the info I now receive on a daily basis is amazing), but I like to try (for those who actually have the right attitude).

            Not meaning to sound condescending BTW. When it comes to advanced fundamental principles, I consider myself below average by pro standards. I lean (and learn) on others for that. My quid pro quo is market research / investigative journalism, the ONE and ONLY category I can credit myself as being among the best. All other strengths come from collaboration with better-skilled colleagues.


          2. Let me acknowledge I do not know why this was filed. So in reality I am opining a bit here. That said, every bone in my body says this can’t be a good thing. Why would Ted file the 8k stating HMNY’s intention to force a full acquisition using Delaware corporate law if both companies have agreed on terms for the remainder of the buyout? If there is a reason that makes sense that I have not thought of, I am all ears. It defies logic to think they are in agreement when you read this. At least IMO. By the way, thanks for posting. Some of the information you have posted I saw for the first time because of you! Now you need to give yourself a posting name other than anonymous. How about Anon? 🙂


  8. I really enjoy reading your articles. But the amount of patting yourself on the back and going on and on about what a professional investor you are and how much money you make is really annoying. You do it in almost every blog post and it adds nothing to the value of your article except maybe self-gratification. If anything it makes your post slightly hard to get through. I hope you don’t take this comment too harshly, but it had to be said.

    That being said, i still enjoy your content and will continue to read.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Appreciate the feedback. My intent is to 1) validate why readers should listen to me vs. most of the BS out there and 2) to motivate folks to succeed.

      If that result is not being achieved, it serves no purpose at all. Would be interested in more people‘s feedback on this. Cheers.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. When I first began reading your posts (and as a new trader) they did serve to motivate and validate. They illustrated how little I understood of all that goes into calculating the value of a stock (before public opinion, politics, fake news…). Knowing my deficits has been my greatest strength in limiting my risk and has kept me in the game.

        Later your realist approach to research and numbers became the validation (Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please ~Mark Twain). Like the legal disclosure in every post, one has to learn to skim the parts that do not pertain to oneself. I think you do a great job of writing for both new subscribers and regular readers. It is a hard balance to obtain. So thanks, and keep up the good work.

        Oh yes, and money is still the motivator lol. At least at the superficial level.


  9. I disagree with Evan and feel that stating your credentials is a positive for your readers. It serves as a good reminder (to me anyway) that your analysis is a lot more reliable than most of the information/opinion pieces that are out there.

    Liked by 1 person

          1. Great spoiler alert! 🙂 I noticed Bill did not want to discuss the “future” meaning new contracts that are not yet signed. That sounds promising.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s