Any way bud, you were mega negative on TRSwhen it was around $2 - $2.20, probably affected many not buying,then show your hand that you bought.Thankfully I was not listening to.you then, bought heaps around $2-$2.20, "
Which of the following posts of mine at the time were "mega negative" in your opinion:
In fact, any impartial reader of those posts would quite reasonably summarise them as, "He is saying that the business is undervalued based on its free cash flow generating capacity, and that it could be taken over."
If you are carping and bleating about my reference at the time, to TRS's $300m of off-balance sheet liabilities, then - as someone who likes to provide balanced posting (as opposed to unbridled cheer-leading and ramping of stocks) - I make no apologies for that.
Why, I'll wager that one of the major reasons no competing bid has emerged for TRS to date, and why Allensford's opening offer for the company did not commence at a higher price, and has not been raised, has a large part to do with that very significant liability, which is many multiples of the company's operating earnings.
In closing, sorry if my calling things as I see them causes such an offence to your sensibilities, but I'm not sure what to do about it.
Maybe if it is positive commentary, and nothing other than positive commentary, about stocks that you want to read, then maybe a stock discussion forum is not for you.
Because, by its very nature, discussion is likely to involve views that do not accord with one another.
Sounds to me like what you are really after is a stock cheer-leading forum.
.
