KK. I agree with much,or nearly all, you say in regard to...

KK. I agree with much,or nearly all, you say in regard to investing on the market(particularly those comments/advice aimed at newbie investors who would be well advised to take your views to heart lest they learn some hard lessons)...... The marketplace abounds with truisms that have been around for yonx (such as "with shares there is no bottom "- you must have heard people say that when a particular share is,say, 2.8c it cant go much lower. What illogical piffle....Or "dont argue with the SP- the market price is the only/best- by- far value of a companys shares". Not piffle, but needs qualification. The Purity of the market theory only works reliably when all the info that most of us would expect to be available is in the market .In my White Knight posts I have repeatedly referred to this flaw in this Purity of the Market theory. The flaw exists where there are people who absolutely KNOW what is happenning in a company (but are able to prevent the ship from leaking) and another group who absolutely CANNOT KNOW what is happenning- because the former group deprive the latter of the info needed for them to correctly assess the situation . Those of us who are prepared to take aboard but also stand back from the available info, observe certain things or events the importance of which may not be immediately obvious(see my 2 points below), then proceed on the theory that we are all (to a man) greedy by nature ,and are then prepared to "follow the money" are on the way to deducing what is really happenning. ... Im sticking with my 2 pointers(in my last post).... Point One- Mae has been running on empty for over 12 months,yet somebody with$ 2.7m was prepared to front up to keep the lights on. Nobody,not even your average or unsophisticated lottery winner , would consider throwing $2.7m at Mae ......Point 2 - until somebody can show me something in JSs history (including in his time with Mae) where he has been prepared to take an entrepreneurial position in a company then I am going to assume that he is honouring the code amongst scientists,engineers,architects etc that says they wont sign off on any empirical statement by a company that misleads anybody who might suffer as a consequence(this includes safety issues). If a board,for example, goes ahead and issues such a statement 99% of this group will resign and the other 1% will be those who have lost the plot...What you see on the surface with Mae is ABSOLUTELY not what lies just below the surface.