Re: NOD - Nomad Building Solutions
Miner,
You do me an injustice. Perhaps I should have been more clear. My comment was not in any way a whinge about ASF, which I think is terrific.
I was going to ignore the undeserved scolding but I am interested in the discussion, hence my defence/explanation.
What I was getting at, is that there is so little reliable information available to assess the stock and make predictions about the performance of the outfit. The discussion in the thread is useful to a point but is essentially speculative musings, even with a bit of number crunching thrown in. It is like looking at a fog shrouded jungle island like the one where King Kong lives. You just can't know what's in there, and if you go there everything turns out to be a surprise, so often a bad one. The information provided by the outfit is obviously biased and has to be dissected to find the facts and what's relevant, and what it means. Information is missing. A statement that they employ 500 people is not very useful if it turns out that half of them are engaged in corporate PR and the rest don't know the business.
Why people invest on this basis, maybe no better than tossing a coin, is a mystery to me. I realise that you have to go with the information you've got. So I am asking?
Miner,
You do me an injustice. Perhaps I should have been more clear. My comment was not in any way a whinge about ASF, which I think is terrific.
I was going to ignore the undeserved scolding but I am interested in the discussion, hence my defence/explanation.
What I was getting at, is that there is so little reliable information available to assess the stock and make predictions about the performance of the outfit. The discussion in the thread is useful to a point but is essentially speculative musings, even with a bit of number crunching thrown in. It is like looking at a fog shrouded jungle island like the one where King Kong lives. You just can't know what's in there, and if you go there everything turns out to be a surprise, so often a bad one. The information provided by the outfit is obviously biased and has to be dissected to find the facts and what's relevant, and what it means. Information is missing. A statement that they employ 500 people is not very useful if it turns out that half of them are engaged in corporate PR and the rest don't know the business.
Why people invest on this basis, maybe no better than tossing a coin, is a mystery to me. I realise that you have to go with the information you've got. So I am asking?