Fully Informed Market, page-64

"MergernotaTO - It wasn't so long ago that you were disparaging HotCopper posters who were sharing their own views of the relative values they saw for both RED and SLR. You suggested the Boards of the relevant companies, in possession of much better information, were in a much better position to value the companies than were uninformed HotCopper posters."

I fail to see the point of what you are trying to say here. When did anything I say that states otherwise?

I said "VOTE NO TO INFLATED PE EVAULATIONS. VOTE NO TO UNDERPRICED HEDGES. VOTE NO TO LT GETTING KICKBACKS FOR LETTING THIS FARCE OF A MERGER GO THROUGH. VOTE NO TO DESTROYING SHAREHOLDER WEALTH. VOTE NO TO SHARE DILUTION. VOTE NO TO DEADWEIGHT. VOTE NO SO SLR CAN RERATE. VOTE NO SO SLR CAN PAY DIVIDENDS. VOTE NO POG GO HIGHER DEAL GET WORSE FOR SLR. VOTE NO TO GOING INTO THE RED."

None of these things that I have said disregard any of the other things I said before? That is that and this is this lol? not sure how it is relevant? but okay?

"I am capable of viewing things from both sides, positive or negative and both have merits and demerits. It would seem that the merits of a no vote outweigh the merits of a yes vote for me. I'll spare you my reasoning, as people do not seem to like when I explain things in detail."

I gave a for and against argument and was in the for category before and now have changed my mind? Is that allowed king joesph? What sayth you am I allowth to changeth my mindth?

"Suddenly, or at least since about 16 April, you seem to have formed an opinion that this "merger" is not such a good idea - even though the Boards of both companies support it."
Again "I am capable of viewing things from both sides, positive or negative and both have merits and demerits. It would seem that the merits of a no vote outweigh the merits of a yes vote for me. I'll spare you my reasoning, as people do not seem to like when I explain things in detail."

"So, you know more than the Boards now?"
Why are you putting words in my mouth? When did I quote, unquote; say I know more than the boards?

"You make a big play about your posts containing facts whereas you suggest some on here only give opinions (it's actually a forum for people to actually offer opinions as well as facts). But the real trick is to interpret facts correctly."

So are you saying that my posts do not contain facts? I am saying that some people here only give opinions. Is this a fact? You tell me my liege.

"You've highlighted the fact that RED and SLR have different Price Earnings Ratios but I'd suggest you don't really understand much about PER's and what investors are looking at when they study them. Quoted PER's are based on the company's most recently reported earnings. They're a historical fact. If a company has negligible earnings at the moment, it's PER may be quite high but if its earnings boom in the near term, the quoted PER will reduce. It's the company's future success and profitability which will give us the capital gains and that's why investors sometimes buy stocks with relatively higher PER's than their peers."

If you read part 2 of VOTE NO you would seen "VOTE NO TO UNDERPRICED HEDGES" which I think answers your question to whether or not I understand PEARS (the fruit). But yes I would say that inflated PE ratios are also a future fact for RED unless they merge with SLR not just a historical one. Why would I say this my liege? Well you can decide if this is my opinion or a fact but since red has hedges that are around 40% or so lower than the current POG I assume that their earnings will be quite abysmall (did you get it I spelt it wrong but I got to make it punny).

"If a company has negligible earnings at the moment, it's PER may be quite high but if its earnings boom in the near term, the quoted PER will reduce. It's the company's future success and profitability which will give us the capital gains and that's why investors sometimes buy stocks with relatively higher PER's than their peers."
Is this why you pick red? Hahaha