hasn't come rushing in, raising the value of this stock. Now, ask yourselves why? Because it is bleeding to death, burning cash at a fast pace. Until this company can show, with hard numbers, that it can make a profit, the funds will be hard pressed to recommend Sndk to a potential investor. Let me see, invest in a company that's burning cash, or one that's making cash.
Just saw it hit daily low 14.66 and quick 10 cent jump, probably short covering. Now, will begin its descent to new daily low. I think the shorts no longer are concerned with any resistance or with covering today rather than waiting until tomorrow when it should open at a gap down of at between 35 to 50 cents.
My friend, the market is trying to rally three major indices as I post; however, Sndk is still looking to hit its daily low. I see that Sndk is now closer to where it was the day it reported than to when it reached 16. I still see considerable downward pressure on it. Today, I'm correct. We'll see what tomorrow holds.
I have so stated here that SNDK would be best served by a consolidation off the recent up move rather than an unsustainable upward thrust that would technically weaken the stock. As of this moment, it is doing precisely what a bullish technical scenario dictates. My short calls are substantially profitable and as time value erodes should fully offset what I see as the worst case for a pullback. Be mindful, as I have also said here, this stock bottomed out long before the market did, and then built a nice base prior to its volume-confirmed upside breakouts.
Say what? Yale granddaddy, Vice-President, Boudion,purple heart ,silver star, I was right about at least one thing,you are either the biggest braggart I've come across or a liar. As Bobby Hill, Hank's boy, says "I say good day to you, sir".
My friend, my younger brother failed his army physical after having been drafted in the summer of 1970.
And I have my silver star and purple heart.
I'm not going to argue the pros or cons of the viet nam war from a perspective of socio economics. Any one who truly believed in it could have volunteered regardless of his draft number or status or of his socio economic background. One of my cousins who's personal friends with our Vice President choose not to give up his student and later married with child exemption So, my friend, no one stopped you from enlisting if you so desired.
You are so easy . A LOW draft number was not a winner. My number was 286. That is the only lottery that I ever won. A low number makes your brother eligible for the draft. Want to try again? Gore and Kerry both volunteered in order to build their political resumes. Why would you use them as an example? You have ,unwittingly,made my point for me. The young and poor made up the vast majority of those who served and died in 'Nam. You have to know that and should be ashamed to try and say otherwise. In my county of 33,000 we lost 13 men and all of them. ALL of them came from low-middle to poor families. The better off got deferments or joined the guard which was never called up. Remember this if nothing else. A low draft number got you drafted. Someone involved with the draft would NEVER have gotten that wrong. NEVER.
My friend, I started college in mid 60s and unfortunately was a goof off despite my paternal background, my grandfather graduated Yale Law school in the early 1900's. And like the fraternity brothers in Animal House, the dean of my college turned my grades over to my draft board. I was drafted after having lost my college deferment. And my late father who enlisted in Patton's third army in WWII and had a number of tanks shot out from under him, was at that time a believer in the discipline of the military. Later he would turn anti Viet Nam when my younger brother was the lucky recipient of a low lottery number. AS my brother likes to tell it, it's the only lottery he ever won. What's your socio-economic background have to do with serving your country. Ask John Kerrry or Oliver Stone or Al Gore, all Ivy league graduates. So, my friend, don't believe you can predict the future from empirical evidence.