He sold all his shares. Lol. He did the same with FIT as well. Not sure what he's doing. Kind of all over the place. He's really pumping ITMSF.
he sold all his shares?
Jonathan, yes, Mark sold out of GLUU entirely with very little explanation. He effectively announced it by burying the fact in the middle of one of his recent Pipeline updates. He certainly did his best not to cause a stir. And so this is the reason for this thread. At the very least he owes us an acknowledgement that things did not go as planned. Further, he owes us a detailed explanation (an autopsy, really) about what went wrong. On a related note, it's been one of my long time beefs with Mark, that whenever he issues a buy rec on a stock, he makes it headline news. But when he sells that same stock (usually for a loss), he buries the fact in the middle of an unrelated article. I first noticed this phenomenon a couple years ago with DLIA. When he first issued his buy recommendation on DLIA, his headline on the article was "Buy DLIA". And then a few months later after the stock collapsed, in a regular monthly update, he happened to notice in the middle of his article that he gave up on DLIA. No where in the headline did he mention that a major positi on change had taken place! And lo and behold, fast forward two years, and the same happens with GLUU. Why am I not shocked?
If you joined his seeking alpha blog, I believe he disclosed that
I was not aware of that. This was his prodigy child! Thank you for the info Robert.
yikes - i didn't notice it on the seeking alpha blog.. which post or video was it?
Robert, while I would on the one hand agree with you 100%, otoh, what is there to say? Gluu has just completely blown it time and again, something I would probably attribute to piss poor management and leadership. They have had so many opportunities to capitalize on momentum and goodwill, and just failed miserably every single time in the last 2 years. What is absolutely incredible is that they have basically released new games that have performed worse than the previous released games were performing at the time of the new release! Case and point(s) Deer Hunter and K&K. Those new releases wiped the old games off the board (KKH for K&K), and then absolutely bombed, dropping far lower than the previous version was generally running. They actually cannibalize their own games, and then flop! How incompetent to do you have to be to accomplish that?!?!?!
I disagree guys! This is a very competitive market and gluu has many games that do well. The stock has been hammered as of late. However, they have huge cash reserves and support. Revenue keeps increasing year over year. Not only is gluu a buyout target they are also one hit game away from the sky. Remember, this is a high beta stock. It will move again. Rather than sell for a loss I'm going to be more patient. Glue and Aero are my last two stocks from this ptt scam. Once out I'm gone and never looking back! :)
I'm soooooooo underwater in GLU its not even funny. I'll hold for better days or take a tax loss when it goes bankrupt. I'm hoping for a buyout. Does anyone recommend any better stock advisory company. I would of done better then PTT if i did my own stock picking over the last 2 years.
^ I have been taking the advice of some here and just seeking out my on companies, and have done pretty well recently.
Gomes finally came clean on GLUU in the message section of one his seeking alpha articles. He said his assumptions turned out to be wrong, but there was no mistake on his part. Typical Gomes double-speak. Not surprised. We all know the real deal. Anyway, here is the exchange between him and a SA commenter who brought up GLUU stock: "Isn't this the mistake you made in attempting to value GLUU? Without long-term consistency in revenue, it makes no sense to use a DCF model to value a company at a sustainable price. The key word being "sustainable". Of course, if one is playing for short-term pops based on headline news, then DCF models don't matter anyway. But to use the language of long-term valuation methods while playing for the short-term pop sounds pretty pumpy to me." Mark Gomes responded with the following post: "Your point is valid and it warrants elaboration. I'll explain why there was no mistake (in my eyes) with GLUU. It's a simple matter of philosophy and semantics. In the case of GLUU, I thought that the engine approach and celebrity genre would be rep eatable for them. Neither assumption was a "mistake". They just turned out to be "wrong". However, it did prove "right" for long enough (Deer Hunter and Kim K helped them to beat many quarters) to get readers in at $3.14 and out at $3.80 (with several significant trading opportunities along the way), much better than the Russell's performance over the time frame. This was largely due to starting with an adequate initial floor under the valuation. Notice that I put right and wrong in quotes. Indeed, I never think of myself as right or wrong. I simply assess the risk and reward of each situation and invest in what I perceive to be the most attractive ones. I assume that many theses will not play out, but also that the winners will more-than-offset the losers. Over the past 19+ years, that has proven "right" in 16 or 17 of those years."
Did he actually tell the subs to buy on the dips and sell when it reached the top of the channel. Nope, he stopped providing the R/R charts and really stated you should hold until it triples. Thankfully I did not take that advise on many, but did on others.
I think being "wrong" is the same as making a "mistake". It is hard to imagine anyone not being extremely disappointed with Mark. How can you trust a stock analyst who shows a complete lack of transparency? He is a good writer and a smooth talker, I will give him that. But he definitely oversells and underdelivers. So many of his picks in the last years have been so disastrous that it calls into question his abilities as a stock picker. I have asked someone who studies body language to look at his introductory videos and the hand motions he is making. Apparently, he is doing everything right in encouraging trust. He is good at getting people to trust him. It is just his ability to help investors that is lacking.
One of drawbacks we saw here in my opinion was the lack of completeness in the analysis. Take a look at that M Partners report for example - they dedicate a section to risks and also provide background into executive and board member history - if possible, I encourage people to take the time to add this to their research as well as some checks on Glassdoor for company culture/management approval. Also I would expect someone working full time on analysis to be monitoring SEC filings as well. I'm guilty of not having/taking the time to do this right away at times, but it is refreshing to see real professionals doing this extra due diligence to provide this to subscribers since it helps to get in front of negative trends and also helps to keep you grounded with realistic expectations. These are mechanical improvements that do require time but can be done by even junior analysts to complete the picture. I suggest focusing on learning from this experience to help future returns, since at this point I don't really think there will be a material change in Mark's behavior/m ode of operation - he's been given plenty of time to show what he has to offer, what you see is what you get.
PTT & Co. led by Capt. Gomes has been a huge disappointment, promotion of mediocrity + abuse of trust = bad Karma!