Yeah yeah.....Some people bought in the 20s. So what? Some people bought in the high 2's. That's why more and more "investors" dollar cost average by making small initial entries and adding judiciously, spread out over time. Having said that, I don't try to hold any stocks long term that don't pay a decent dividend, and even with them, I do trades around my core positions, and make sure I have a balanced portfolio. But everybody is different.
Peter Schiff says not to put any money in the US market cause he believes we're heading for an even bigger crash than we had in 2008, when the bond market inevitably implodes. I agree with him that the Fed will not be able to stop the QE. That's all a bunch of supreme BS. As soon as the Interest owed on the National Debt, exceeds the GDP, how will we avoid inevitable downgrades from the Rating Agencies, unless they have been threatened and cow towed by now? The mainstream media almost never brings up this simple concept anymore.....bought and paid for.
What I think is Funny, is how you are so concerned with what other people's cost basis and share count might be, while totally ignoring that not everyone has the same time horizon for their investment.
More like......Buy 1000 shares @ 9.65, sell @ 9.85. Lather, rinse, repeat (to use your expression).
That's true............unless you're making things overly complicated and jumping through hoops of your own making, trying to desperately support a short thesis (Masters Thesis?).
rjpurg..rjpurg the man of the hour,
he's where you look, when things are quite dour,
his charm is disarming, his points are concise,
heed his warning, or be stuck eating rice.
Don't lie or post un-researched slanderous or inaccurate comments and you will not receive any "uncivil jabs". You have already posted many things which you misrepresented as facts that would have gotten you fired if you were a newspaper or TV reporter , or quite possibly would have gotten yourself sued.
That's what you do to try to rewrite history.
Only Fifer got that (usually one time - he got one in 2011 too) Retention award in 2012. And it was a LIE. If I had not done the research (90% wouldn't bother) I would have taken your statement at face value. You disputed by saying that they were "time based" (you DID NOT say "mainly") rather than "performance based"......and what's up with that?, because ALL of the RSUs are time-vested !!!
"Not true that the free shares are based in large part upon performance. Actually they are based on the mere passage of time"
"Authorized satisfaction of the performance trigger criteria for the 2012 annual performance-based equity
awards; these awards will complete the time-vesting trigger on February 28, 2015"
Again......they wouldn't give him a Retention Award if his performance were not such that they couldn't stand to lose him, so that is performance based as well.
Those are One Time (OK, Fifer got one in 2012 and one in 2011) Retention Awards, which are due to having been offered jobs with competitors. It is to keep them from possibly leaving the company. Fifer is the only one who got one in 2012. Nobody is expected to receive one in 2013. Fifer's doesn't cliff-vest until December 31, 2016. In a way, those are performance based too, because they wouldn't be courted by other companies unless they were good. The last thing a shareholder wants is to have valuable executives leaving the company. You don't care about that because you are just a shorty, in fact you want that.
Still no excuse for you to LIE and say that none of the equity awards (in the target compensation) were performance based, when all of them were in 2012, except for Fifer's Retention Award.
Not Surprised ! What a window dressing #$%$---b---ag ! He's been wrong for over 3 quarters now, and he has the nerve to say not surprised. He put RGR on SELL and SWHC on HOLD back around 8/14/12 (I'm going from memory here so don't yell at me) and never changed his stance.
OK damn you, LOL. Even though you weaseled out of the original point without admitting you were wrong I just can't let your statement stand cause I hate lies. See page 20 of the Proxy Materials. It shows that for 2012 well over one half of CEO (67%) and VPs (57%) compensation was performance based. For the CEO, 30% was "PERFORMANCE BASED EQUITY AWARDS" and for the VPs 24% was performance based equity awards.
PS: Shorts will not be able to make a LOT of money though, lol, especially not with SWHC, it is fairly bulletproof due to its super low valuation.
Agreed. The street has priced in a bigger recession in sales than will actually happen, being cautious as it is, and being misled by Liberal writers and analysts like the Seeking Alpo writer, Rommel Dionisio, and Scott Hamann. Shorts will be able to make money in the short run, but in the long run it is the Longs who will prevail.
What a devious debater you are! Acknowledge first to me that you were wrong on your stance regarding RGR share buybacks. That was the original point. Again, I don't have much time to waste with someone who will not learn, and whom I will not be able to learn from, even though I have done that with you many times in the past. I can imagine how thrilled people are to read these BS exchanges that you cause to proliferate on these boards. Can you imagine how much they must despise you at this point?