- Joined
- 17 June 2004
- Posts
- 668
- Reactions
- 2
It is a long term goal for MUL to list on the NASDAQ. They have shown interest for the OTC a year ago and it's finally happening.i think its because they need more money, and cant get any more locally..
stefan said:Interesting point:
To list on the NASDAQ, the share price has to be above US$1. I think we may see a reverse split sooner than I thought. It would be excellent timing if they would stick to their forecast and then have a split in March/April but let's just see how things unfold. There are many more restrictions and I somehow think the board is still living in the DOT-COM area where a stock listed on NASDAQ would lead to stellar gains just because it's on there.
Mofra, yes you're right. That's what the board should be. I have hope that they are. But they have yet to proof it to me as a shareholder. I have not seen much coming out of this board that would have convinced me that they're serious enough. By that I mean that the constant issue of new "insentitives" as they call it has to stop. How much insentitive does a board need to be motivated enough? These guys are each holding millions and millions of shares with millions and millions of options attached to them. If they where serious they would stop this madness and commit their own money to show some confidence. Nope, all they do is spoiling themselves with more free issues.Surely the board should be more concerned with the long term profitability of the company from a fundamentally based viewpoint?
stefan said:That's my main point and the main reason why I don't like this board of directors. Now that doesn't mean that they can't delivery a result. I'm just fed up with their behaviour.
Stefan
Another way to put it.Stefan, in my observation, there isnt a board, its just Adrian and 2 rubber stampers
funnyone said:50 companies on my watch list have dropped more than 30% in 2 weeks...for no reason what so ever.. no falt of board ..chartists...or Gurus...it's crazy but this is the market we're in..So don't be surprise if for no reason what so ever MUL goes up to 10c.
Posted by TECH
RUBBISH
There is NO mystery to stocks falling for no aparent reason.
Simply there is no buyer interest.
There is no perceived value.
They are not seen by the market as sound investments which will grow with time.
Yep. I agree. MUL will never go to 10cents again for no reason. It went there once and there really was no reason supporting it so it came all the way back down again. MUL will only ever raise again if they can turn it into a profit. Everybody is waiting to see if that eventuates.I for one will be very suprised if MUL rises to 10c for no aparent reason. Unlike a stock falling a stock will rise ONLY if investors/Traders percieve value.
funnyone said:what I was trying to say before is this market is so volatile that we just can't relly on fundamentals...one has to take a punt to win big.....or crash big !!!
my instinct with MUL is a big win
If Airworks follow the foot steps of woolworth in OZ and later India and China as stated...imagine the potential and liquidity...
Excuse me, but just because you sold an amount equal to the purchase price does by no means lead to the assumption that you made money. You may hold a profit but that's different from having made money.I have retained my profit in shares by only selling an amount equal to my purchase price, so I have made money
That's up to each investor to decide. I just do not hold MUL for a quick buck.What do you call lots of money?
Come on now. There aren't 1.3 billion holders out there. Or do they all hold 1 share?as regards to being stuck, are 1.3bil holders stuck.
Being stuck in a stock is a term relating to the situation where you are holding a stock worth less than what you paid for. If that's the case then yes, you're stuck. I'm not. I'm still holding a profit on MUL. I don't know how much money you made out of it so far by selling and buying and I don't know your personal situation.Well I suppose I am stuck, or am I
I don't know where you get that impression from. I certainly will hold MUL for another few months but I'm not saying you should do the same. You have to find your own way of trading it. Only the end result will show which idea was the most efficient one. I do see a chance that they can stick to their earning forecast and as such I do believe that my idea will work out. Yours may as well. Selling on the next run probably won't hurt you. Why would it?Are you saying don't sell on the next run, lets hold and watch it go higher
Sure, that's your decision. I'm saying they have produced a forecast just now. All we had before was a Findlay report from a stockbroker who got paid in MUL shares to write it. What did you expect? I was pissed as well to read it and I've mentioned that report a few times before. Anyway, now management has produced a forecast and they have linked their insentitive options to it. That's what I like about it. Now we actually can measure what these guys are doing. If they fail then I will dump my shares as well. If they live up to the forecast then I will keep holding.HO HO I belive in Santa Claus too. If so I am still selling because I dont believe the crap anymore, it has to make a profit and it hasn't, how many companies come in below their expected forecasts?
brer, I said I'm not going to discuss MY position in MUL anymore. I'll keep posting if there's something interesting going on. But in all fairness, it should be said that MUL gets way too much attention. Especially within my own strategy of holding on to it until we see the figures. That's going to take another couple of months and therefore I may just as well sit and wait instead of talking about it twice a day. Anyway, we shall see. It's a high volume stock it gets a lot of attention as lots of people are holding MUL shares.sorry you wont be around to discuss MUL anymore.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?