posted
ya you got us now. Whiz didnt even notice that we where below a dollar.
theres a good excuse lets sell all our Q because it hasnt reached its maturity yet much like Ghostly.
Rod
quote:Originally posted by ghosty:
quote:Originally posted by SMC:
quote:Originally posted by whizknock: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Penny-Trader: [qb] Ghosty You are looking for answers why dont you do a bit of work and prove us wrong.
If anyone had proof I was wrong they had since April 11th 2004 to prove I'm wrong. They haven't proved me wrong only because it's impossible! I'm right!
Not trying to prove anything.....
...but I have mentioned this stock before, it is a "Genuine National Broadcasting Network" and it is trading for "less than a buck a share".
Again, not trying to stir up anything, just the facts as I know them.
Now what do you have to say "whizknock" ?? Looks like he proved you wrong. Let's hear the excuse now.
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is that we are not trying to boost anything. we are pointing out simple undispuitable facts.
you are only attacking someone to show your ignorance. that is fine as we see you for the peice of pond scum that you are.
i wish you well on judgement day when you have to answer for your slanderous behaviour.
but to each thier own. thankg for showing your true colors.
Rod
quote:Originally posted by retireyoung: Urbt also has billions LESS share count. Whiz is just tring to boost the stock with anything he can think of. 1st, we have been launched for how long now; 2nd, other networks have multiple channels with countless carries; 3rd, they dont have billions and billions of shares... This stock will not trade more than a dollar with out a reverse split. $.10-.15 is as far this thing will ever see with this share count.
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is even funnier is that you seem to think that you have him over a barrel when really all you have done is proved that you are too lazy to look up the info and realise that Whiz is correct and that you have failed to make a viable arguement.
you must be management material. i deal with intelegence like yours on a daily basis.
thanks for your attempt to open our eyes, but you really should try to learn something before trying to play wiht the big boys.
go grab you dolly and sit in the corner like a good little girl.
Rod
quote:Originally posted by ghosty: What's funny is - I asked him to show me 10 "genuine network television stations" that trade above $10 like he said - and he couldn't for some reason? YOu'd think if he did all his research to find none traded for under $1, this would be easy info to give?
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hell ya we care but we know he can and has in the past so we dont need him to do it agian, especially for the likes of these clowns
Rod
quote:Originally posted by Ramius: Does anybody care if Whiz can actually name the networks? No, I didn't think so. The bottom line is that the longs here support Whiz and the Q. Caddy arguments that have no value don't matter to us. Some of you sound like teenage girls.
__________ GO Q.
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Penny-Trader: The thing is that we are not trying to boost anything. we are pointing out simple undispuitable facts.
Oh??? Here's a fact your friend said:
quote:Originally posted by whizknock: Genuine Broadcasting National TV Networks do not trade for less than a buck a share.
That's just a fact.
That "undispuitable" fact looks like it's not a fact anymore, is it? YOu try way too hard to defend yourself even when you're wrong - just admit it and get it over with.
Posts: 610 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
soundl like you are bi polar to me and maybe in the familly of U4
yoyo kinda comes to mind lately when i see your posts ghosty
Rod
quote:Originally posted by ghosty:
quote:Originally posted by airdoo: ghosty you asked whiz to name FIVE that traded over $10. he could have easily done that but he wanted you to do your own dd. but it looks like someone else did it for you. seriously calm down. if you don't have anything positive to contribute to this board then i suggest you don't post here. this is for people who are INVESTING in Q and who expect it to increase in value substantially.
ghosty you asked whiz to name FIVE that traded over $10. he could have easily done that but he wanted you to do your own dd.
Burden of proof is on him - I didn't make any claims. And as you can see his claim of "television networks trading less than a buck of share" was shattered.
this is for people who are INVESTING in Q and who expect it to increase in value substantially.
So I guess I'm in the right place.
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Penny-Trader: What is even funnier is that you seem to think that you have him over a barrel when really all you have done is proved that you are too lazy to look up the info and realise that Whiz icorrect and that you have failed to make a viable arguement.
Whiz is correct? Did you even read the thread? He is not correct - he was proven wrong. Why can't you accept this?
quote:Originally posted by Penny-Trader: you must be management material. i deal with intelegence like yours on a daily basis.
"Intelegence" like mine? I'd hate to be working for you if that's how you spell.
quote:Originally posted by Penny-Trader: thanks for your attempt to open our eyes, but you really should try to learn something before trying to play wiht the big boys.
go grab you dolly and sit in the corner like a good little girl.
What are you 12? I was surprised to check your profile and see a 38 year old talking like this.
Posts: 610 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stating that Q is trading for under a dollar does nothing for your arguement you moron.
you couldn't come up with anything, you are a lazy person that would rather argue then look up the facts. If you spent half of time doing DD on this stock as you do posting crap you would see the true value and potential of this company.
Rod
quote:Originally posted by ghosty:
quote:Originally posted by Penny-Trader: The thing is that we are not trying to boost anything. we are pointing out simple undispuitable facts.
Oh??? Here's a fact your friend said:
quote:Originally posted by whizknock: Genuine Broadcasting National TV Networks do not trade for less than a buck a share.
That's just a fact.
That "undispuitable" fact looks like it's not a fact anymore, is it? YOu try way too hard to defend yourself even when you're wrong - just admit it and get it over with.
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
im outta here for the day people i have more to do then sit here waiting for Ghosty to form an arguement that would make any sence.
talk to you all tonight or tomorrow
Rod
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Penny-Trader: Stating that Q is trading for under a dollar does nothing for your arguement you moron.
you couldn't come up with anything, you are a lazy person that would rather argue then look up the facts. If you spent half of time doing DD on this stock as you do posting crap you would see the true value and potential of this company.
Rod
I already do see the value of it - hence why I own 500,000 shares right now. I've been holding since April of '04.
Posts: 610 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
If you had proof you were right we would all be happy. If i said you were a murderer; are you a murderer untill you prove me wrong or untill i prove you are one? You make no since what so ever. [/QB][/QUOTE] Retire Young
Urbt also has billions LESS share count. Whiz is just tring to boost the stock with anything he can think of. 1st, we have been launched for how long now; 2nd, other networks have multiple channels with countless carries; 3rd, they dont have billions and billions of shares... This stock will not trade more than a dollar with out a reverse split. $.10-.15 is as far this thing will ever see with this share count. /Quote Retire Young
Retire Young,
You have posted these statements on "proof".
Since I have a substantial investment in this stock, your definitive input would be appreciated.
Obviously you must have some undisclosed proof that this stock will not trade higher than .10-.15 without a reverse split.
... or is this just something that you thought of?
posted
Now wait a second Rod, before you start talking trash...
First of all I said I wasn't trying to stir anything up, just stating facts, as I see them.
Secondly, Whiz made a point of saying he was right, and all I'm doing is proving he is not. Perhaps it's an oversight on his part, perhaps he's just very excited about the potential of Q and wants to believe that no other network sells for less than a buck. Doesn't matter, the point is that his staement was incorrect and he's been corrected. I for one will wait on his response before I make any judgements.
And by the way, what exactly do you mean by "yes which is exactly his point". ??? Look forward to a civil answer. Thanks, SMC
quote:Originally posted by Penny-Trader: yes which is exactly his point. it will not stay here
god you people are simple minded.
you cant even form an intelegent arguement.
I dont know why i even waist my time on your post.
honestly people go and play with your dollies
Rod
quote:Originally posted by SMC:
quote:Originally posted by whizknock: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Penny-Trader: [qb] Ghosty You are looking for answers why dont you do a bit of work and prove us wrong.
If anyone had proof I was wrong they had since April 11th 2004 to prove I'm wrong. They haven't proved me wrong only because it's impossible! I'm right!
Not trying to prove anything.....
...but I have mentioned this stock before, it is a "Genuine National Broadcasting Network" and it is trading for "less than a buck a share".
Again, not trying to stir up anything, just the facts as I know them.
posted
Whiz has been pumping QBID and MLON for a long time. You see his "All we ever had to do is launch!" he appends to the end of every post? It used to be "All we have to do is launch!" and when we launched and got NOWHERE - he changed it to what it is now. I've been holding QBID since April '04 and see value in it but when people like him say false things just to pump up the value of a stock.. that's not right. I'd like to see what h has to say in regards to the stock you mentioned.
quote:Originally posted by SMC: Now wait a second Rod, before you start talking trash...
First of all I said I wasn't trying to stir anything up, just stating facts, as I see them.
Secondly, Whiz made a point of saying he was right, and all I'm doing is proving he is not. Perhaps it's an oversight on his part, perhaps he's just very excited about the potential of Q and wants to believe that no other network sells for less than a buck. Doesn't matter, the point is that his staement was incorrect and he's been corrected. I for one will wait on his response before I make any judgements.
And by the way, what exactly do you mean by "yes which is exactly his point". ??? Look forward to a civil answer. Thanks, SMC
posted
I got here just in time to see that the clowns have arrived or is the clones. You see one basher you have seen them all. As usual always trying to prove a point when nothing needs to be proved. I truly enjoy the bashers, they reaffirm my position in the "Q". The recharge me
Who really cares if networks are worth $1.00 or $0.30 at this point. We all know that we have something very valuable here with QBID.
As for me, it always works better when I have someone telling me what not to do. It stirs up a defiance and makes me stronger in my pursuits.
So thanks Gosty, Thanks U4 thanks to everyone out there who post negative things about the "Q". It serves to make me stronger you are doing a great job. keep it up.
This week was a great week to stock up on more Qbid and that I did. While some of you bashers were busy "Loosing" money with your lousy picks on another board, I was getting ready for my very "Green Future".
But not to worry, after I make my green I am going to personally give all the bashers a free subscription to the "Q" so that they can be reminded each and every day what they missed out on and wattch their favorite programs.
I believe in the "Q" and I imagine that a lot of others do also. I can't imagine why so many of the rich and famous visited the "Queer Lounge" at Sundance if this was a flake.
Also I am not sure if anyone noticed that while the PPS was at 0.0035 the buying was furious. At closing 16:07 there were 2 buys for 9000000 and then at 16:08 there was a buy for 9000000 and one for 1000000. Do you suppose that those at Sundance were getting in. Last chance before the new week starts and the Sundance is over.
So Bash baby Bash, Clown are Clowns, and you know the color of money is green, no matter where it come from. I am going to get mine from the "Q".
GO QBID!!!!!! Bring On The Green Posts: 4727 | From: Elk Grove ( Sacramento )CA USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doctoall: So thanks Gosty, Thanks U4 thanks to everyone out there who post negative things about the "Q". It serves to make me stronger you are doing a great job. keep it up.
Can you show me where I posted negative things about "the Q"?
posted
my mistake on this one i thought your comment about this network was referring to QBID. i failed to see the link at the bottom of the page
but in Whizes defence on this one, it has traded as high as $1.70 in the last 52 week and as recently as December it was there.
Rod
quote:Originally posted by SMC: Now wait a second Rod, before you start talking trash...
First of all I said I wasn't trying to stir anything up, just stating facts, as I see them.
Secondly, Whiz made a point of saying he was right, and all I'm doing is proving he is not. Perhaps it's an oversight on his part, perhaps he's just very excited about the potential of Q and wants to believe that no other network sells for less than a buck. Doesn't matter, the point is that his staement was incorrect and he's been corrected. I for one will wait on his response before I make any judgements.
And by the way, what exactly do you mean by "yes which is exactly his point". ??? Look forward to a civil answer. Thanks, SMC
quote:Originally posted by Penny-Trader: yes which is exactly his point. it will not stay here
god you people are simple minded.
you cant even form an intelegent arguement.
I dont know why i even waist my time on your post.
honestly people go and play with your dollies
Rod
quote:Originally posted by SMC:
quote:Originally posted by whizknock: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Penny-Trader: [qb] Ghosty You are looking for answers why dont you do a bit of work and prove us wrong.
If anyone had proof I was wrong they had since April 11th 2004 to prove I'm wrong. They haven't proved me wrong only because it's impossible! I'm right!
Not trying to prove anything.....
...but I have mentioned this stock before, it is a "Genuine National Broadcasting Network" and it is trading for "less than a buck a share".
Again, not trying to stir up anything, just the facts as I know them.
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
SMC, URBT is a network owned (51%) by Christian Media Firm.
From your link, I learned that their intent is to create a private dish network for their church. They are the only "Minority Certified" network. They offer a variety of programing. Perhaps it is a question of perception that splits the hairs. They have traded above and below a dollar.
BET (not on an index) is held by Viacom and URBT's other competitors are also privately held--not on an index.
Seems new networks have similar problems in PR's. In a recent release, they denounced an erroneous "poisting" sic (posting) that had been picked up by the business wires.
Gee, I must really be bored with the snow and ice to enter into this discussion. lol
quote:Originally posted by Doctoall: So thanks Gosty, Thanks U4 thanks to everyone out there who post negative things about the "Q". It serves to make me stronger you are doing a great job. keep it up.
Can you show me where I posted negative things about "the Q"?
Thank you.
Can you show me this can you show me that?? Give it up.
-------------------- Be Careful Of The Toes We Step On Today, They Could Be Attached To The Butt We Have To Kiss Tomorrow Posts: 4727 | From: Elk Grove ( Sacramento )CA USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kids play that game, if you show me yours, I will show you mine. What happened did you show someone and they laughed.
-------------------- Be Careful Of The Toes We Step On Today, They Could Be Attached To The Butt We Have To Kiss Tomorrow Posts: 4727 | From: Elk Grove ( Sacramento )CA USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doctoall: So thanks Gosty, Thanks U4 thanks to everyone out there who post negative things about the "Q". It serves to make me stronger you are doing a great job. keep it up.
Can you show me where I posted negative things about "the Q"?
Thank you.
Can you show me this can you show me that?? Give it up.
That's what I thought. Posts: 610 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ghosty: [QB] You see his "All we ever had to do is launch!" he appends to the end of every post? It used to be "All we have to do is launch!" and when we launched and got NOWHERE -
I must diagree with you. I have never heard Whiz once say...."all we have to do is launch and we will hit a dollar".
Give me a break.....Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than this?
Again, this company has come a long way in a year. If you got in high, I'm sorry....the fact is this stock is up over 3000% in one year.... Tell me that's CRAP!!!!!LOL, My accountant and I are Laughing our A$$'S off at that one.. Now......The fact is we have a much needed network....Real business does not happen over night....Lot's to do to get a network off the ground...the demand for this is huge in the G/L community... Do you need more shares? It must be that.. I don't see why you got into this stock to begin with...You must have seen potential at some point. You either need more shares at a lower price, either for yourself or your friends and are trying to bash to get the PPS down or, You perhaps are a daytrade gone bad, not knowing when to exit.....I don't know or care. The fact is...this company will release carriers, and when they do the pps will rise. NOW, I'm sure you don't want any of my advise but, being a Mother (not the kind you're thinging) It's my nature to give it..... Get out and don't look back or....Stay in and try and be productive and spread the Q word......Cuz' if you do really have shares, You're not helping the pps with your BS, non productive, proof lacking attitude....
Now......Off my soap box and back to our regularly scheduled BS.
posted
It is great that we are fortunate enough to have people like Doctoall, Ric, lilpennypincher, Penny-Trader, and anyone else I missed to contribute their DD to the board for discussion. I'm not sure I would have been able to come up with all of these answers without their help. However, bashers have given a bad name to the message board community, and anyone who seems to post anything negative about a stock is perceived to be a basher now. I think a lot of times they are too often confused with skeptics. I, myself, am very cynical when it comes to investing - especially in penny stocks. When buying stock in a company, you need to take into consideration both sides of the argument (the good and the bad). The reason I don't post negative things about QBID is because I don't have the DD to back it up. I am acting out of emotion, and that is what I think many people are doing here. If you have something to contribute, whether it be good or bad, I encourage you to post it....but as long as you can back your argument up. I am very curious to hear what everyone has to say. And again, I thank those of you who have already contributed a great deal to our discussion.
Posts: 798 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
something to read for the weekend, good luck to longs!! ========================= INVESTING
Out of Your Control
Over the past few years, the amount of information that we can access instantly has skyrocketed thanks to the Internet. But is this information a good thing? A leading psychologist notes that human aversion to short-term loss can cause us to make mistakes by trading too much based on short-term wiggles and waggles. If you don't watch 'em, you can't react to 'em.
By Bill Mann (TMF Otter) January 26, 2005
Do you have any idea how little control you have over your investment results? Certainly, over long periods of time, people who make good investing decisions will tend to outperform those who make bad ones. But tracking performance from day to day is a pretty fruitless activity. It probably just makes you more skittish and anxious than you need to be.
Don't believe me? OK. Let me ask you a question. Did you beat the market today? Let's see, at the time I'm writing this (Tuesday afternoon), the S&P 500 gained a little more than 0.3% on the day. Me? I'm down for the day.
Bummer.
OK, how'd you do the day before that? How about last Friday? How about January 27, 1986?
At some point, even the dimmest among us will clue in to the sheer absurdity of tracking how we did on any given day. I mean, if what happened on a single day in 1986 doesn't really matter to you anymore, why in the world would what takes place today matter? I mean, unless you have one of those truly life-changing market events -- which actually do happen -- then the fact that you went up or down X% on any given day is meaningless. Seriously, think about it this way: One of the biggest gainers on the Nasdaq yesterday was an education technology company called Alphasmart (Nasdaq: ALSM), which rose 22% on news that it's merging with Renaissance Learning (Nasdaq: RLRN). That's a huge day, right?
Well, sure it is. But what that 22% represents is a recovery of market losses that the company has had over a little more than three months. Alphasmart crossed its current threshold in early October 2004 and still sits at about half of its opening day of trading in February 2004. So, which is it? Up 22% for a day, or down 50% for a year?
It depends on your time frame, you might answer. But you know what? It really doesn't. These numbers seem like they matter because they're taking place right now. But how many Alphasmarts were bought out in 1986? If you held one of them, do you still think about that 22% day, or that -50% year? My bet is that you do not. So if what happened several years ago in one single stock in one single day has had scant impact on your investing results, then why in the world would today be any different? Because it's recent?
Actually, Alphasmart offers a good example for the tricks the human mind plays that can harm your investing returns. In this past year, IPO fever has returned, mainly on the back of the boffo returns at Google (Nasdaq: GOOG). But historically, most IPOs are less like Google or eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY) and more like Alphasmart and a host of companies from the late 1990s that don't exist anymore. Why is the general perception the opposite? Well, once PurchasePro and its ilk fail, they fade from memory, leaving only the huge successes to reinforce what they did.
Headline: Today, nothing happened There are decisions that we make in our investing careers that will matter a great deal. For example, the folks who bought into Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) or Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO) in the early 1990s and held through thick and thin have done extremely well. How many people do you know in this position -- people who made a single investing decision that turned into a life-changing event? They exist, of course. But they didn't accumulate their wealth in a single day. Though the 4.4% rise in Microsoft stock on September 12, 1991, might have felt just great on that day, it quickly became essentially meaningless because of the inexorable march of time.
The difference in feeling between a stock market day 13-plus years ago and the one we had yesterday feels like the difference between standing on a mountain and seeing it from the air. In the first instance, it looks jagged and imposing; in the second, all of the contours are smoothed out. You could even raise the stakes. Consider which feels more important to you: that which happened yesterday, or that which happened in the entirety of, say, 1997.
There's a reason for this: It is much easier to recall what happened yesterday than it is to remember events from longer ago. But in the scheme of things, yesterday's results are no more important to you than the results from any other day of your investing career. In fact, focusing on what happens in any one day may actually harm your ability to generate long-term returns.
Your brain is out to get you The reason this is so is what Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman describes as the human aversion to short-term losses. I was reminded of Kahneman's work from a fantastic 2001 article penned by Jason Zweig that was posted on the Fool's Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRKa)(NYSE: BRKb) discussion board. Kahneman insists that your best course of action is to make sure that your reviews of how you're doing match your time frame as an investor. If you're going to invest for 40 years, why in the world would you give a hoot how you did in the 17 minutes between 11:17 and 11:34 this morning? The only thing this checking does (and as I've said before, I'm a checker) is get you riled up. "I lost $457! Should I protect my gains by selling?"
If you think about it, limiting the amount of time that you obsess about the wiggles has to be good for your psyche. Every day, it seems, I hear some poor benighted soul wailing and gnashing teeth over some big institution "painting the tape at the close." I always think to myself, "Who, right and truly, cares?" But if you obsess over what you've done over extremely short periods of time, then it's only so natural to be really interested in what happens in the last few seconds of the day. Even if such a thing as tape painting exists (and it does, particularly close to the end of the months when funds have to report performance), it does nothing to change the value of the company.
If it goes up, sell; if it goes down, don't buy What this obsessive checking does is give you a greater sense of control than you actually have. What it also does is, frankly, drive you insane. If you're wondering whether Krispy Kreme (NYSE: KKD) is going to survive, does it make more sense to spend your time (a) watching the stock price and rooting for it to go up, or (b) doing some extensive research into the company's financials, the background of the new management, and the company's business prospects to determine whether you believe that it has the gumption to succeed, and, further, whether the price offered today fully reflects these chances? The first path is reactive, the second proactive, and you just might to get to eat a doughnut in the process.
Do yourself a favor. Try not to check your stock prices today. Maybe go and read the Zweig article instead, since I can honestly say that it's one of the best I've read in a long, long time.
Posts: 424 | From: Baltimore, MD | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
folow-up ================== Do You sabotage yourself?
Daniel Kahneman has done more than anyone else to explain why most of us make so many mistakes as investors--and what we can do about it. Jason Zweig May 2001 Vol. 30 No. 5
When people ask me which investment thinker I've learned the most from, they expect names like Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch and John Bogle. But I always give the same answer: Daniel Kahneman.
He's not a great stock picker like Buffett, a masterful fund manager like Lynch or a crusader for investors' rights like Bogle. Instead, Kahneman is a psychologist at Princeton University who studies how people estimate odds and calculate risks--the very essence of investing. To my mind, Kahneman has done more than anyone else alive to shed light on how to improve our investing judgment and manage risk intelligently.
My fascination with Kahneman began five years ago, when I heard him speak at an investing conference sponsored by Harvard. His blue-green eyes glittering behind heavy eyeglasses, Kahneman swept back and forth like a hungry owl, holding the audience of money managers transfixed. Citing research on everything from American entrepreneurs to Swedish drivers, he explained how prone humans are to "overconfidence," or the belief that we know more than we really do. He bolstered his case with tales from his own life, confessing that he'd once underestimated by seven years how long it would take to help write a textbook. In an accent that's part French and part Israeli, he asked, "Do you know how little you know?" Under his keen gaze, those words felt like a challenge to re-examine everything I'd assumed to be true.
As soon as I returned to my office, I hunted down Judgment Under Uncertainty, a hefty anthology of scholarly articles Kahneman had written with his longtime research partner, Amos Tversky (who died that year). I spent the next three days in a fever of intellectual discovery, hiding out in a windowless, soundproof room where no one could interrupt me. Scribbling notes furiously, drawing arrow-strewn diagrams and sprinkling the book with exclamation points, I discovered insights and connections that had long eluded me. Why do people buy high and sell low, when they know they should do the opposite? Why do investors listen to analysts who are clearly clueless? Kahneman and Tversky had the answers.
I felt as if someone had taken the top of my skull off with a can opener and was shining a searchlight inside. What that light revealed was hardly what I'd expected: I was not the rational, sensible investor that I'd always thought I was. In many ways, I now saw, I was a dope. And that, Danny Kahneman has been teaching me ever since, is probably the single smartest thing I--or any investor--could ever figure out.
Others have been similarly enthralled. William Sharpe, the Nobel-prizewinning economist, says the findings of Kahneman and Tversky are "certainly worthy" of a Nobel. "I love their work and always have," says Sharpe. "There's a huge amount of information in there that helps us understand how people actually make decisions."
In this age of instantaneous information, any of us can find out almost everything there is to know about any stock. Why, then, have so many of us lately earned the worst returns of our lives? Because information is useless if we misinterpret it or let emotions warp our judgment. Kahneman's research throws us a lifeline that can save us from our own self-defeating behavior.
PIGEONS, PILOTS AND IPOS
Kahneman was born in Tel Aviv in 1934, but his French parents returned home to Paris when he was three months old. Six years later, as Kahneman was finishing first grade, the Nazis invaded France, and his family was forced to wear the yellow star that marked Jews for deportation to the death camps. His father, a research chemist, was taken away but then released because he was considered useful to the war effort. The family escaped to unoccupied France and spent the rest of the war in hiding and on the run. His father died in 1944, and 12-year-old Danny moved to Palestine with his mother two years later.
Kahneman thought of becoming a physicist or economist, but he ended up studying math and psychology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He finished his B.A. at the age of 20. Having survived so many horrors, he had already developed a deep distrust of things that others take for granted--the notion that humans are rational, the confidence that knowledge can solve all problems, even the belief that there's a God. He entered the work force as an unorthodox thinker determined to challenge the status quo. In 1955, as a skinny 21-year-old in the Israeli army, he saw that the psychological screening system for recruits was a mess; new soldiers designated as officer material often weren't, while many of those on combat duty should have been peeling potatoes. Kahneman set out to overhaul the system.
"From the beginning, Danny was different," says his assistant on that project, Mina Zemach, now Israel's top political pollster. "He thought like an outsider." In the 1950s, Israel was a frontier society, and many men wore their shirts unbuttoned. Kahneman insisted on wearing a tie. "If I leave my shirt open," Zemach recalls him saying, "people will look at my chest when I interview them. I want them to look at my eyes." After months of interviews, Kahneman replaced the old method of haphazard, subjective questioning with a standardized survey--systematically rating recruits on six factors like aggressiveness and masculine pride. His system was so effective that, with some modifications, the Israeli army used it for decades.
Kahneman went on to earn a Ph.D. at Berkeley, studying statistics, the psychology of visual perception--why things look the way they do--and how people interact in groups. Then, at 27, he returned to Hebrew University to teach statistics and psychology. One former student recalls that Kahneman's notes for his dazzlingly diverse lectures consisted of a few words scribbled on a cigarette pack on his way to class. "Danny was exhilarating," says Michael Kubovy, now a psychology professor at the University of Virginia. "He thinks in a way that imports ideas from everywhere."
Kahneman captured his first great insight by observing his own students. In the late 1960s, he was teaching a class on the psychology of training to flight instructors in the Israeli air force. Concerned at how the instructors screamed obscenities and pummeled trainees' helmets until they cried, Kahneman told his class that research on pigeons showed reward to be a better motivator than punishment. One flight instructor burst out, "With all due respect, sir, what you're saying is for the birds." He heatedly told Kahneman that trainees almost always did worse on their next flight if they'd been praised--and tended to fly better just after getting yelled at.
Kahneman was dumbstruck. He realized he was staring into the face of a profound misperception: The flight instructor believed that his own praise or criticism caused the trainee's performance to reverse. In reality, Kahneman knew, chance alone dictates that an unusually good or bad event is typically followed by a much more ordinary one--what statisticians call "regression to the mean."
Regression also explains why hot funds go cold and why the Nasdaq, after doubling in 1998 and 1999, has imploded. But, like the Israeli flight instructor, most investors fail to see how powerful a force regression is. We know in theory that "what goes up must come down"--but, as Kahneman saw that day, we vehemently resist recognizing it in practice.
In 1969, Kahneman asked Amos Tversky, also a Hebrew University psychology professor, to visit his class. Tversky insisted in his lecture that the average person, while flawed, is basically rational in appraising risks and calculating odds. "I just don't believe it!" exclaimed Kahneman, and after class he and Tversky retreated for lunch. By the time they'd polished off their appetizers, Tversky saw Kahneman's point--and was raising him. Volleying ideas at each other in an inspired frenzy, they speculated that people use mental shortcuts to estimate probabilities and predict risks. Over the next decade, they ran dozens of experiments that confirmed their lunchtime hypotheses.
--We base long-term decisions on short-term information. The "law of large numbers" holds that only a vast sample of data (a nationwide poll, say) can give an accurate picture of the population it's drawn from. But Kahneman and Tversky found that the typical person acts on what they christened the "law of small numbers"--basing broad predictions on narrow samples of data. For instance, we buy a fund that's beaten the market three years in a row, convinced it's "on a hot streak"--even though a mountain of research shows that three-quarters of all funds underperform in the long run. And many investors concluded in 1999 that growth stocks would clobber value stocks indefinitely, since they'd done so for five--yes, five!--years running. Sure enough, value stocks trounced growth by more than 28 percentage points last year.
--If something is easy to recall, we think it happens more often than it does. Kahneman and Tversky had people listen to a list of male and female names, both famous and obscure, and then recall whether it contained more men or women. When more of the famous names were female, 81% of people concluded that women made up more than half the list--when, in fact, there were more men on the list.
Likewise, it's easy to recall initial public offerings that have been famously lucrative, like Cisco and Microsoft. Yet IPOs that fizzle--like, say, 3DO Co. or Quarterdeck Software--vastly outnumber those that sizzle. Historically, IPOs have actually underperformed the rest of the stock market by three to five percentage points a year, but many gung-ho investors fail to recognize that the majority of new stocks are stinkers.
--When estimating future values, we "anchor" our projections on any number that happens to be handy. In one experiment, Kahneman and Tversky asked people to estimate various statistics, such as the percentage of African countries in the United Nations. Before each person guessed, the researchers spun a "wheel of fortune" to generate a number between 0 and 100. When the wheel landed on a low number, people tended to guess that African nations made up a small percentage of UN members; when it landed on a high number, they guessed that Africa accounted for much more of the UN's membership.
Experiments like this prove that the mere suggestion of an outside number is enough to distort people's views. That's just what happens when an analyst publicizes a price target for a stock. Such targets often are utter garbage--but investors still "anchor" on them. On Dec. 29, 1999, PaineWebber analyst Walter Piecyk slapped a 12-month target of $250 (split-adjusted) on Qualcomm. That day, the stock soared 31% to $165, as investors headed toward Piecyk's anchor. But 12 months later, Qualcomm had belly flopped to $82, 67% below his target; it now wallows around $50.
THE ODD COUPLE
Pushing ahead with their experiments, Kahneman and Tversky were on fire with what they had found. "Their eyes shone," says former student Maya Bar-Hillel, now a leading psychologist at Hebrew University. "It was hard to believe that serious work could be so much fun. Danny and Amos never stopped talking about it."
The two men were like an academic Odd Couple. Tversky was a math wizard with deep, focused knowledge; Kahneman had brilliant instincts and broad interests. Tversky kept nothing on his desk but an expensive pen and one sheet of paper on which he'd scrawl equations from memory, says a former student, while "Danny was always messy and panicked. He constantly couldn't find things."
In the late '70s and early '80s, they focused on how people perceive risks. Economists had long argued that a rational person will wager an equal amount for the chance to win $100 or avoid a $100 loss. After all, either gamble leaves you $100 better off. But Kahneman and Tversky showed that most people don't think that way. Try one of their experiments yourself: Imagine a coin toss in which you'd lose $100 if tails came up. How much would you have to win on heads to be willing to take the bet? Most people insist on at least $200. The lesson: Losing $100 feels roughly twice as painful as gaining $100 feels pleasant.
In fact, Kahneman and Tversky concluded that we hate losses so much that we make inconsistent gambles in the hope of avoiding them. Their findings help explain, for example, why people tend to sell their winning stocks too early, while holding on to losers for too long: We want to lock in a sure gain before something jeopardizes it, but we'll hang on to a losing stock in a bet that it will eventually break into the black.
Kahneman and Tversky's proofs of the pain of loss also show why more investors don't stake all their money on stocks. History suggests that stocks should outperform bonds over any period of 30 years--but few of us bet every cent on stocks. That's because the short-term pain of owning them in a disastrous year like 2000 overwhelms our perception of the long-term gain they should eventually produce.
KAHNEMAN'S COMMANDMENTS
Today, five years after Tversky's death, Kahneman is as intense as ever. When I ask him what he plans to do in retirement, he shudders visibly and says, "I don't want to think about that at all." The study in his Princeton home is ankle-deep in papers, and he sheepishly admits that he's never even glanced at the classic English novels his wife buys him.
In the past few years, Kahneman has shifted to measuring what makes us happy. I ask him the obvious: Does money buy happiness? "Not exactly," he says. Even as wealth has surged in recent decades, the percentage of Americans who say they're happy with their lives has remained basically the same. But money does buy happiness in one sense, Kahneman notes. The key is not how much you have, but how you spend it. "There's good evidence," he says, "that people get more pleasure from things they're not habituated to." Like what? "Flowers, feasts, vacations," he offers. "Try to spend your money on things you won't get used to or tired of."
As the ultimate authority on why most of us fail to get rich, Kahneman would seem ideally equipped to master the stock market. But when it comes to investing, he says, "I don't try to be clever at all." He largely sticks with index funds, which buy and hold a vast array of stocks. Comfortable with his limitations, he doesn't chase individual stocks or trade in and out of the market. "The idea that I could see what no one else can is an illusion," he says.
Few of us are as honest about our shortcomings as Kahneman is. Yet we can all benefit from applying his insights to our portfolios. Here are the lessons I've learned from him.
--Distrust data. Rather than leaping to conclusions based on scant data, look at as many numbers as possible. Don't rely just on recent performance; look at several time periods. "It doesn't take many observations to think you've spotted a trend," warns Kahneman, "and it's probably not a trend at all." Merrill Lynch, for instance, recently told investors to slash their exposure to overseas stocks since foreign returns have lately resembled those of U.S stocks. But what if that proves to be an aberration?
--Chill out. The hotter an investment's recent returns are, the more skeptical you should be about its future. Remember to ask what eventually became of other similarly faddish investments. Until lately, years of easy profits had made investors much too confident. As Kahneman wryly notes: "In a rising market, enough of your bad ideas will pay off so that you'll never learn that you should have fewer ideas."
--Anchors aweigh. When pundits like Goldman Sachs' Abby Joseph Cohen predict where the Dow is heading, or when analysts like Morgan Stanley's Mary Meeker forecast Amazon.com's stock price, the market often moves magnetically in their direction. But don't anchor your expectations to the tea leaves of the so-called experts. At best, they're making educated guesses; at worst, they're manipulating you to make money for their own companies.
--Use mad money. If you can't resist the temptation to trade stocks, put the bulk of your portfolio in a broad stock-index fund; then take a little (10% tops) to "play the market" yourself. This way, you keep your hunches on the fringe, where they belong. "It's like going to the casino with only $200," says Kahneman. "It helps protect you from regret."
--Step back. In scary times like these, force yourself to look at your whole portfolio. Last year, my stake in AOL Time Warner (MONEY's parent) plunged 57% in the fourth quarter. But Kahneman has taught me to use what he calls "global framing," or looking at the sum total of everything I own. It turns out my entire portfolio was down only 8% that quarter and was flat for the year. So I didn't sell, because I didn't panic--and my 57% loser has since bounced back.
--Stop counting. "If owning stocks is a long-term project for you," says Kahneman, "following their changes constantly is a very, very bad idea. It's the worst possible thing you can do, because people are so sensitive to short-term losses. If you count your money every day, you'll be miserable." So I check the value of my investments a grand total of four times a year; while others agonize over what their stocks did from 1:24 p.m. to 1:37 p.m. today, I'm more concerned about where mine will be between the years 2024 and 2037.
--Fly on autopilot. Many of the people who loved the Nasdaq when it was at 5000 a year ago won't touch it now that it's at less than half that level. Such irrational mood swings lead people to trade too much as they veer erratically between glee and dismay. "All of us," says Kahneman, "would be better investors if we just made fewer decisions."
Luckily, there's a solution called dollar-cost averaging. Every month, an automatic electronic transfer sweeps money out of my bank account and into index funds. I never try to predict where the market is going; I just mechanically shovel more cash into my funds each month, regardless of whether the market has been going up, down or sideways. I call this my "permanent autopilot portfolio." It gets me out of trying to guess what will happen next--a game that Kahneman has taught me I can't win.
--Look within. Most financial advice, especially on TV and the Internet, suggests that investing is an endless race to beat the market. Every day brings a breathless stream of bulletins about who's ahead or behind. If anyone else wins, it seems, you lose. But Kahneman's insights teach us something very different and vastly more profound: Investing isn't about beating others at their game. It's about controlling yourself at your own game. I'm not a penny poorer if someone in Dubuque beats the S&P 500 and I don't. But I can ruin my family's financial future if I lose my self-control and let my greed or fear trick me into buying high or selling low.
For each of us, risk doesn't reside only in the market. It lurks inside ourselves--in the way we misinterpret information, fool ourselves into thinking we know more than we do or overreact to the market's swings. By teaching me the paradox that the most powerful thing I can learn is how little I can ever possibly know, Danny Kahneman has set me free.
Posts: 424 | From: Baltimore, MD | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm doing some DD on publicly traded television networks. Here are some findings
1. Asian Television Network. (SAT) Trading at $18.50 a share with 39 million shares outstanding. This gives them a market cap of roughly 700 million. Their enterprise value is 610 million http://www.asian television .com/corporateinfo. htm
2. Gray Television (GTN-A) Trading at 12.92 with 48 million outstanding shares. Market cap is $632 million with an enterprise value of 1.23 billion. They're not so much a network as they are affiliates. They own 29 stations affiliated with ABC, CBS, and NBC. They are in 25 markets around the nation but ONLY in 5.3% of total US television households.
3. Hearst-Argyle Television (HTV) Trading at $25.43 with 97 million shares outstanding. Their market cap is 2.36 billion and an enterprise value of 3.11 billion. They do just about the same as Gray Television. They own 27 stations that get to 17% of the nations televisions.
4. Hispanic Television Network (HTVNQ.PK) Trading at .0005 with 155 million shares outstanding. Market cap is only 77 thousand with an enterprise value of 4.5 million. They own two network stations that are broadcast in 19 markets. Its programming includes movies, second run television shows, events, and educational programs.
5. Metropole Television (MTPVF.PK) Trading at 28.2306. Since it's a pink I have no idea on the technicals. This is the #2 television station in France. They air programming for youths but also have news and dramas.
6. Urban Television Network Corp (URBT.OB) Trading at .30 http://www.ur ban-ame rica-tv. com/ Looks like a terrible station. Unprofessional.
7. Television Azteca SA de CV (TZA) Trading at 9.41 with 186 million outstanding shares. Market cap is 1.76 billion with an enterprise value of 2.03 billion. TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V. (TV Azteca) is a producer of Spanish-language television programming and a television broadcasting company in Mexico
Basically what needs to be taken from these is that there are stations out there for under $1. As whiz says "no GENUINE" networks for under a dollar. Some of these may be genuine, such as the Asian Network. What matters though is the outstanding shares. I know some people hate me saying it but we honestly don't know what our O/S is right now. They could be doing so much to it and we have no clue. Even if we have 13.5 billion shares outstanding we're only worth about 47 million. Look at the values of those networks market caps right there. 700 million, 632 million, 2.36 billion, 1.76 billion. Even if QBID only gets to a market cap of 632 million that would make the PPS .047 with 13.5 billion O/S. With a market cap of 2.36 billion that would give us a PPS of .175.
What really needs to be considered is that QBID has a huge potential to be larger than all of the companies I quickly found. Frank said he plans for the company to be worth about 5 billion in a few years. When I see the value of the companies I found I think QBID could be worth twice that. If QBID develops into the international network they plan to be, imagine the possibilites. I'm holding long and strong. Matt
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: I'm doing some DD on publicly traded television networks. Here are some findings
1. Asian Television Network. (SAT) Trading at $18.50 a share with 39 million shares outstanding. This gives them a market cap of roughly 700 million. Their enterprise value is 610 million http://www.asian television .com/corporateinfo. htm
2. Gray Television (GTN-A) Trading at 12.92 with 48 million outstanding shares. Market cap is $632 million with an enterprise value of 1.23 billion. They're not so much a network as they are affiliates. They own 29 stations affiliated with ABC, CBS, and NBC. They are in 25 markets around the nation but ONLY in 5.3% of total US television households.
3. Hearst-Argyle Television (HTV) Trading at $25.43 with 97 million shares outstanding. Their market cap is 2.36 billion and an enterprise value of 3.11 billion. They do just about the same as Gray Television. They own 27 stations that get to 17% of the nations televisions.
4. Hispanic Television Network (HTVNQ.PK) Trading at .0005 with 155 million shares outstanding. Market cap is only 77 thousand with an enterprise value of 4.5 million. They own two network stations that are broadcast in 19 markets. Its programming includes movies, second run television shows, events, and educational programs.
5. Metropole Television (MTPVF.PK) Trading at 28.2306. Since it's a pink I have no idea on the technicals. This is the #2 television station in France. They air programming for youths but also have news and dramas.
6. Urban Television Network Corp (URBT.OB) Trading at .30 http://www.ur ban-ame rica-tv. com/ Looks like a terrible station. Unprofessional.
7. Television Azteca SA de CV (TZA) Trading at 9.41 with 186 million outstanding shares. Market cap is 1.76 billion with an enterprise value of 2.03 billion. TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V. (TV Azteca) is a producer of Spanish-language television programming and a television broadcasting company in Mexico
Basically what needs to be taken from these is that there are stations out there for under $1. As whiz says "no GENUINE" networks for under a dollar. Some of these may be genuine, such as the Asian Network. What matters though is the outstanding shares. I know some people hate me saying it but we honestly don't know what our O/S is right now. They could be doing so much to it and we have no clue. Even if we have 13.5 billion shares outstanding we're only worth about 47 million. Look at the values of those networks market caps right there. 700 million, 632 million, 2.36 billion, 1.76 billion. Even if QBID only gets to a market cap of 632 million that would make the PPS .047 with 13.5 billion O/S. With a market cap of 2.36 billion that would give us a PPS of .175.
What really needs to be considered is that QBID has a huge potential to be larger than all of the companies I quickly found. Frank said he plans for the company to be worth about 5 billion in a few years. When I see the value of the companies I found I think QBID could be worth twice that. If QBID develops into the international network they plan to be, imagine the possibilites. I'm holding long and strong. Matt
Wow! This is good DD! Let me take this opportunity and thank you for this!
Posts: 798 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of you guys need to chill. Lots of things should be happening soon, so let's wait and see. Lots of things already have happened to the Q that never did happen in the past. Read things from the past, but also look at the past year what they have done, and how far they have come. This is a new network, doesn't happen in a few weeks or months, it takes lots of time. The ones who expect things right away I say sell and buy something else, cause this is a long term. I can't believe some of you guys, I have to laugh it off, it's like a sitcom.
Dave
Posts: 263 | From: Illinois | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Make sure and read last paragraph. It explains how Q can hit $1.00 a share. I do believe that QBID has to do a little restructuring to achieve Whiz's goal but does that make him wrong, no. It makes him excited about buying and holding a company with as much potiential as Q. Well Qbid ever see a $1 a share, I think it can. A little work and a lot of exposure to the GLBT communty and we will take off. Most networks take year after launch to make it. QBID is on pace and after it proves it is going to stay its true worth will shine through. AND yes Whiz pumps his favorite company. All of us do. He has held things together with his hopes and dreams of a better day for QBID. Go Q and Whiz.
Repost of my orginal post from 12/25/2004 _________________________________________
Well, I think I can prove O/S and buyback amount. Heres it goes. Facts: In Feb 2004 the O/S was 7.5 Billion with Frank owning approximately 4 Billion Shares and Float was 3.5 Billion shares. A/S was 15 Billion
SO around 4 Billion Frank 3.5 Billion Float
Total O/S 7.5 Billion
After pps increased the Stocks was diluted by 2 Billion shares to 9.5 Billion O/S. 1 Billion shares sold on open market over a period of time and 1 Billion to Frank so he Maintained majority ownership.
So around 5 Billion Frank 4.5 Billion Float
Total O/S 9.5 Billion
June there was a loan given to Q to buy movies and rights to the gay games. In exchange for this loan 6 Billion Restricted shares was issued for collaterial on the loan. The A/S was increased to 50 Billion to support the collaterial and take over and merger protection.
So around 5 Billion Frank 4.5 Billion Float 6 billion restricted
Total O/S 15.5 Billion
Over the last few months a buyback of shares occured for a total of 1 Billion shares completed Dec. 10th 2004.
So Around 5 Billion Frank 3.5 Billion Float 6 Billion Restricted
Total O/S 14.5 Billion
Now that the Buyback is finished Frank can retire 1 Billion shares he issued himself to maintain majority back in May 2004. So One year later we are back were we started with 7.5 Billion plus the restricted that will never hit the market.
So in Early 2005 One year later
4 Billion Frank 3.5 Float 6 Billion Restricted
Total O/s by Feb. 2005 13.5 Billion with 50 billion A/S and float of 3.5 Billion
And since we went to .03 with this exact float back in April with only hope. Now that we are a Network that is on the air and have great live shows. Then there is no reason we shouldn't be over a penny right now and looking at a dime soon. So forget about the restricted shares. Once loan is paid off, they will be retired any way. So you can look at the company as having a O/S of 7.5 when trying to figure Market Cap. Now that most companies pps is about twice as high as Actual value then we could if everything comes together see a $1.00 per share. It will take a little restructuring to go much higher then that but still possible. Future buybacks with Frank retiring equal amounts could change the forecast to much higher amounts. Also moving Franks shares to Preferred could help. There are many things that could cause this to be well over a dollar a share.
Ric
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Thanks also to all for their DD. I believe in the potential as much as you all, I just like to make sure that what is said here is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Q!!
quote:Originally posted by Penny-Trader: my mistake on this one i thought your comment about this network was referring to QBID. i failed to see the link at the bottom of the page
but in Whizes defence on this one, it has traded as high as $1.70 in the last 52 week and as recently as December it was there.
Rod
quote:Originally posted by SMC: Now wait a second Rod, before you start talking trash...
First of all I said I wasn't trying to stir anything up, just stating facts, as I see them.
Secondly, Whiz made a point of saying he was right, and all I'm doing is proving he is not. Perhaps it's an oversight on his part, perhaps he's just very excited about the potential of Q and wants to believe that no other network sells for less than a buck. Doesn't matter, the point is that his staement was incorrect and he's been corrected. I for one will wait on his response before I make any judgements.
And by the way, what exactly do you mean by "yes which is exactly his point". ??? Look forward to a civil answer. Thanks, SMC
quote:Originally posted by Penny-Trader: yes which is exactly his point. it will not stay here
god you people are simple minded.
you cant even form an intelegent arguement.
I dont know why i even waist my time on your post.
honestly people go and play with your dollies
Rod
quote:Originally posted by SMC:
quote:Originally posted by whizknock: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Penny-Trader: [qb] Ghosty You are looking for answers why dont you do a bit of work and prove us wrong.
If anyone had proof I was wrong they had since April 11th 2004 to prove I'm wrong. They haven't proved me wrong only because it's impossible! I'm right!
Not trying to prove anything.....
...but I have mentioned this stock before, it is a "Genuine National Broadcasting Network" and it is trading for "less than a buck a share".
Again, not trying to stir up anything, just the facts as I know them.
posted
Nice post and remember that this company is bankrupt and is why it's selling at this low of price. Re-oraganization will issue more shares after company comes out, if it does. Thats the reason for its pps.
Ric
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: I'm doing some DD on publicly traded television networks. Here are some findings
************************
4. Hispanic Television Network (HTVNQ.PK) Trading at .0005 with 155 million shares outstanding. Market cap is only 77 thousand with an enterprise value of 4.5 million. They own two network stations that are broadcast in 19 markets. Its programming includes movies, second run television shows, events, and educational programs.
***********************
I'm holding long and strong. Matt
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, its time to get back on this thread. Friday was a great day to accumulate and that I did
This is going to run soon and it will be to late to be chasing.
GO QBID!!!!! My Savings Account Could Use Some Green
-------------------- Be Careful Of The Toes We Step On Today, They Could Be Attached To The Butt We Have To Kiss Tomorrow Posts: 4727 | From: Elk Grove ( Sacramento )CA USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
