Barry, notwithstanding the graceless and hysterical tone of your post here, I do owe you an apology. A re-reading of your original post supports some of what you say here, and I should have noted some subtleties therein which, had I noticed them then, would have kept me from posting as I did.

In my defense, your original post DOES read a whole lot like the hype of a typical "pump and dump" scheme, and I did not actually state that it WAS such a scheme, only suggested the likelihood.

Any run-up in stock price following an earthquake would be very short-lived, as it would be almost entirely due to speculation by people with limited knowledge of how the firm itself would profit. In reality, the firm's orders might go up slowly, and incrementally, over a period of many months to some years as builders and architects decide to incorporate the firms products into their future projects, at a rate slightly higher than before the quake. Approximately half the speculators would lose money, and half would gain. I take issue with your statement that the stock (its "technical indicators") is "oversold." The marketplace is very efficient. There are many hundreds if not thousands of individual investors and professional analysts poring over all publicly available information on that company every day. Consequently its price is exactly where it should be based on all knowledge that is publicly available about the company. Also, you are right about the market being in an uptrend. And it will stay retain that status until it begins a downtrend . . . And what conceivable relevance is there in the fact that the Public Employees Retirement System owns stock in TAYD? I undoubtedly own stock in numerous companies, through mutual funds, that are subject to "pump and dump" schemes. Its not the companies themselves that typically are involved, its speculators. Whatyagonnado? It's a matter for the SEC.

Finally, you wrote: "Also something to consider is why would i recommend a selling strategy as i did if was trying to pump it and then dump it?" That is preposterous. As I read your "selling strategy", it involved setting a sell order at "twice the prevailing price", apparently a target which would be realized subsequent to the next major earthquake. Since that quake could easily be many years in the future, your profit would be made in the interim.

I think, in retrospect, that your post was actually well-meaning, but would hope that serious investors would avoid the obvious breathless and error-prone enthusiasm that causes speculators to trail so far behind investors over the long term.

Michael F. Williams (one of the three wise men)
Arroyo Grande, CA USA