Sat, Aug 23, 2014, 5:33 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Nautilus Inc. Message Board

  • successful_01 successful_01 Aug 21, 2003 12:38 PM Flag


    See you at $15. Can't wait for the short interest report to come out tonight. I would estimate that we have about 9 million shares to be covered as of 8/15. Should work out nicely given the average daily volume in August is about 200k. LOL

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I do agree with you and I do remember that you have never said anything negative about my way of investing in penny stocks.

    • <<Remember the concept of number 3 in investment?? I do remember you were around at that time. >>

      I vaguely remember that. I'm not saying anything bad about the way you invest. I am not exactly the master myself :) My only point was to agree with astral that 15% would be a great annual rate of return on any investment.

    • <<titontongas seemed to opine that 15% per year (= doubling in 5 years) is not a worthwhile rate of return>>

      I never thought that I would see a day where you and Astral would agree on something! I hope it will continue. I must have done something right??
      Here is the real message23046: <<You are not shooting very high "mid $20 in 5 years". With such an expectation I would be already out. I expect this by the end of 2004 or earlier. NLS has set the table for future growth in 2004.>>

      If this message leave the impression that a 15% per year is not a worthwhile rate of return and I was ridicule somebody with such a return, I apologize. This message is only valid for me. If you get this 15% a year you are doing really well. However to get 15% on a portfolio you must shoot at least 30% on individual stocks to take into account the poor performers. Personally I parlay a $7K investment back in 1995 into a $1.7M paper profit in the middle of 2002. I will let you calculate the real rate of return, I am not good at that game. After 7 consecutive years of spectacular profits I took a bath last year going down below $1M. I have tuned up my techniques and so far so good this year.

      <<I want to invest where you guys invest! >>

      In early 2001 I already told you that I was an amateur penny stocks specialist and in a series of messages I provided a detailed technique. I even provide a list of stocks with promising future for people to analyze. Many of these stocks achieved over 1000% since them. My technique was not well received, I was accused of being a charlatan or a big scammer. People were stressing the danger of penny stocks. It was obvious that they were not capable of opening their mind to new concepts. Furthermore I was not really welcome because I was troubling the quietness of the NLS board because these discussions were not directly related to NLS business. From the useless chatting of the past year, I can say the people missed a lot by not listening. More recently when gold was below $285, I pointed out on this board that the comings years were the �Gold Years� and gave again a list of promising penny stocks. The performance exceeded my own expectations. I cannot do more. I gave you concepts not even cover in any books. Remember the concept of number 3 in investment?? I do remember you were around at that time.

    • At least I can agree with that.

      <<titontongas seemed to opine that 15% per year (= doubling in 5 years) is not a worthwhile rate of return.

      I want to invest where you guys invest! >>

    • titontongas seemed to opine that 15% per year (= doubling in 5 years) is not a worthwhile rate of return.

      I want to invest where you guys invest!

    • I share your arguments. First, the major players are already out of their short positions and second I don�t know at what price the actual shorts have taken their positions. In my mind it was around $15 to $20. Of course you might have some diehard shorters with position at higher prices hoping the price will drop to $7 but they are probably in minority. To estimate the position prices of the remaining shorters represent quite a challenge because we don�t have access to the churning. However we can have ball park figures in analyzing the months in which shorters present a net position during the past year.
      Sep 13 2002-Oct 15 2002��� 1.3M�� average price around $22�.. with significant volume in the range $20-$15
      Dec 13 2002-Jan 15 2003��� 0.15M�..average price around $14
      Jan 15 2003-Feb14 2003��� 0.40M�..average price around $14
      Mar14 2003-Apr15 2003��� 0.74M�...average price around $13
      Jun 13 2003-Jul 15 2003����net 0.04M�...average price around $12

      These data suggest that as a minimum 1.3M shorters have taken position below $15 with a similar number in the zone $20-$15.

      To have a better appreciation of the behavior of the shorters you need to analyze the data in the months of the quarterly reports. Sep-Oct was the first quarter which provide evidence of a slowdown in Bowflex direct sales. On the week of the publication of report over 15M shares changed hands ( half the float !) With a price drop of $15 the net of 1.3M should have been higher. I suspect that the big players have download there positions at that time and in following 2 months, being replaced by a large numbers of less informed investors. Shorts position went from 12.2M to 9.2M during Oct to Dec. The Dec-Jan was essentially a non event. The price stabilize around $15 from Feb to the publication of the 2003Q1 report when another $5 price drop took place with a net shorters of 0.74M and about 7M shares changing hand in the publication week. Since that time the number of shorters is slowly going down. One should notice that at the publication of Q2 dismal performance which were really worst than expected the price only drop from $13 to $10 with a net shorts of only 0.04M and a 6M shares changing hand in the publication week. The diminishing net shorts with high volume at the last two quarterly reports is quite revealing specially at the last one. Shorters at higher price have taken the opportunity to download and are being replace by less and less informed shorters. If true, you are right I might have underestimated the shorted shares below $15.With a significant support at $10 tested twice in adversary condition the short game is over. Luckily the uninformed shorts don�t know it and are waiting a $7 in the near future. Keep also in mind that there is no selling pressure from the new NLS share owners. The ones that bought at these low prices were fully aware of NLS difficulties and the number of shorted shares did not scare them.

    • You are not shooting very high "mid $20 in 5 years". With such an expectation I would be already out. I expect this by the end of 2004 or earlier. NLS has set the table for future growth in 2004.

    • "Even so, if like in the NLS situation most of the shorters have taken position between $15-$45 why panic?"

      You have no idea what the average price of the current shorts are. Many short positions are held by hedge funds that have incentive to book profits so they can lock in their performance and get paid. For all we know the current short positions are held by new shorts who opened new positions in the $10-15 range while the old highly profitable positions were closed out. Given the volume in June and July there had to be quite a bit of churn or the price would have gone much higher.

    • Shorts are covering, but there is still a large short interest. I believe that this is a good sign for longs. I bought in at $12.10 and consider this a good long term investment. While some longs bail out at these levels the smart money is invested for the long term. Yeah, everyone knows about the problems nls is facing, but they are diversifying in to other products and have won some court battles to protect bowflex. With aging baby boomers caring more about fitness, this stock should rise. I'm looking for a price in the mid $20s in five years.

    • I'm surprised and interested! But the discussion has indeed become quite vague.

      As you recall, my questions here focussed on titontongas' concept that lower daily volumes make a short squeeze less likely/ less practical.

      So are you saying that 20 years ago high daily volume was in fact required for manipulation? And, presumably, share prices of thinly-traded stocks would have been difficult to manipulate? Before my time, and things change in 20 years, but ...?

      Sorry to be a pain on this narrow issue ... but given your experience I'm sure you'll be able to help me out.

    • View More Messages
12.16-0.10(-0.82%)Aug 22 4:05 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.