Yes, I've never really understood this talk of "taking profits" and that if you didn't, there's either something wrong with you or it means all your analysis of the company is invalid, or you're a bed wetter if you have a negative take on something the company did or didn't do. If you're a day trader, sure, "taking profits" makes a lot of sense. If you've been actively trading this over the years, despite the in the gutter current price, you may have made some coin or broken even. But I don't think most people here are day traders, or people jumping in and out based on the latest press release. I suspect many here are like me - this is a highly speculative play where I'm either going to cash in big, or I'm going to lose it all. This is not on par with an investment in Exxon or Microsoft. Different investments are for different reasons, and people invest for different reasons. Saying you are "to blame" because you didn't "take profits" along the way is just incorrectly putting everyone into a one size fits all box, IMO. If you are someone who simply bought Invictus long solely to see if it succeeds, there's no need for "taking profits" along the way if that's your investment goal. Personally, I'm either going to come away with a lot of money, or I'm going home empty handed. I have no reason to "take profits" in the short term because that is not my goal here. I don't see how that purposely chosen investment strategy for this particular speculative penny stock means whatever criticism I may have for how the company has operated by definition then holds no water.
To each his own. Seems to me the bed wetters are those who can't countenance any negative critical analysis of the company. What company has ever been perfect?
Expand
