Still Have 40,000 Shares of IMMR

[kdotsky]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile I still own 10,000 shares of TASR which I told everybody two months ago I bought at 7.80 (because I thought people were overacting to rare deaths) and it is now about 9.40.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you brought this topic back because I had a question to ask about it. I know very little about stocks but found your logic for buying this interesting. You think the public overweights the rare-death aspect of the product, which seems reasonable. Looking at this aspect alone would indicate the stock is undervalued. You argued along the lines that we can forget everything else since on average the market is efficient, therefore there is an expectation that all other aspects of the company are correctly accounted for in the price.

My question is: looking at the public misperception you observed in isolation, why does this indicate the stock is undervalued? Surely a small number of really smart people with most of the money may have had the same observation you did and caused the price to be corrected before you got in. Wouldn't you have to somehow argue that they, too, had the same misperception the public did? So how do you argue that that hundreds of your counterparts weren't in with 30k shares before you were?

[qdmcg]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile I still own 10,000 shares of TASR which I told everybody two months ago I bought at 7.80 (because I thought people were overacting to rare deaths) and it is now about 9.40. And my dick IS bigger than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[RiverFenix]

I wonder how long until OOT/BBV find this post and Sklanskys dick quote.

[The Velour Fog]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how long until OOT/BBV find this post and Sklanskys dick quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

we're here, im expecting a full scale MS paint attack at any minute now

[The Velour Fog]

the operation goes under the name "D-day" for many various reasons

[kyleb]

hi

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile I still own 10,000 shares of TASR which I told everybody two months ago I bought at 7.80 (because I thought people were overacting to rare deaths) and it is now about 9.40.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you brought this topic back because I had a question to ask about it. I know very little about stocks but found your logic for buying this interesting. You think the public overweights the rare-death aspect of the product, which seems reasonable. Looking at this aspect alone would indicate the stock is undervalued. You argued along the lines that we can forget everything else since on average the market is efficient, therefore there is an expectation that all other aspects of the company are correctly accounted for in the price.

My question is: looking at the public misperception you observed in isolation, why does this indicate the stock is undervalued? Surely a small number of really smart people with most of the money may have had the same observation you did and caused the price to be corrected before you got in. Wouldn't you have to somehow argue that they, too, had the same misperception the public did? So how do you argue that that hundreds of your counterparts weren't in with 30k shares before you were?

[/ QUOTE ]

In most cases they, if "they" exist, don't correct it all the way. Just like in sports betting. Partly because they aren't rich enough and partly because there would be no point to.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile I still own 10,000 shares of TASR which I told everybody two months ago I bought at 7.80 (because I thought people were overacting to rare deaths) and it is now about 9.40.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm glad you brought this topic back because I had a question to ask about it. I know very little about stocks but found your logic for buying this interesting. You think the public overweights the rare-death aspect of the product, which seems reasonable. Looking at this aspect alone would indicate the stock is undervalued. You argued along the lines that we can forget everything else since on average the market is efficient, therefore there is an expectation that all other aspects of the company are correctly accounted for in the price. My question is: looking at the public misperception you observed in isolation, why does this indicate the stock is undervalued? Surely a small number of really smart people with most of the money may have had the same observation you did and caused the price to be corrected before you got in. Wouldn't you have to somehow argue that they, too, had the same misperception the public did? So how do you argue that that hundreds of your counterparts weren't in with 30k shares before you were?

[/ QUOTE ] In most cases they, if "they" exist, don't correct it all the way. Just like in sports betting. Partly because they aren't rich enough and partly because there would be no point to.

[/ QUOTE ] David, I don't know how much water your last statement holds. If there's no point to "them" getting within whatever range of the "correct price" then is there any point for you? I think you would be better served to say that the big money that likey moves the stock closer to the correct price can't afford to get any closer for liquidity reasons that wouldn't affect an individual investor.

[kdotsky]

[ QUOTE ]
In most cases they, if "they" exist, don't correct it all the way. Just like in sports betting. Partly because they aren't rich enough and partly because there would be no point to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this is justified. It seems like a timing issue to me -- it all depends on *when* you make that key observation of the stock. It's going to get corrected eventually. How do you know if it already has or not without trying to put a value on the stock?

And I have no idea what you mean by "there would be no point to".

[David Sklansky]

OK, lets put it differently. As long as only a few people know an angle they couldn't possibly move the price to what they think is correct. Because the closer they moved it to that price the greater the amount of money that would bet the other side.