cvi cvio, page-63

debono...

"If every one followed Snacks advice T4P would be correct.
If every one followed T4P's advice CK would be correct."

Not so...in my model, I suggested people would need only sell much smaller amounts for "wages"...this was the point of my argument; not that we should never sell, but simply let out fewer muvh further up rather than attempt to generate returns by whacking sell bids 3 points ahead the minute we buy them.

Clackers simply took my argument to the 'nth' degree.

MAk is a classi case in point (there have been many like it)...for the sake of a few weeks of patience when it held the greatest impact on the stock, sellers can let out a small portion of their holdings as a net sell rather than, churning over the entire amount for relatively small reward.

Look at any stock that has moved from sub 10c to prices over $2 for example...the early volumes of millions traded per day, typical of 10c stocks do not transpire at their $2+ price lines...for the simple fact if they did, they would not see such prices hold.

The scenario here is a simple one...holders bought but did not sell (on the whole)...and now simply release a very small portion of their stock if and when they need to make "wages".

Watching an "investment" go from $10k to say $100k has a major impact on one's need to sell out at every move of 5 points or more...and here we have the key to what makes some stocks rise...and keep rising...whilst other languish range bound under the weight of mindless churn, both facilitated and indeed encouraged by the actions of those very "investors" who want it to rise the most.

Cheers!