As an investor, our debate is about developing a working model which explains previous price moments which in theory should help speculate future price movements. When those ask why the price of a stock is down when their theory suggests it should be up, are they not really asking why their hypotheses is incorrect. Why does NOT go down when other ROF companies don't? Why does the price go down when more institutional investors are coming in? Why does the insitu value not properly reflect where our price is today? Why? Why? Why?

What confuses me is why do these same people keep using the same models when they do not explain what is going on? Personally I think many of these models were bang on prior to 2008. Since then, I have observed many changes in price drivers of risky exploration companies. Has anyone else? Logically this suggests a change to the model is required. My hypothesis is that investment funds are putting a greater emphasis on generating short term cash flows and managing risk premiums in a different manner.

If, however, conspiracy theories help in your explanations and therefore aid in making better investment decisions then it's kind of pointless to change your tune. If it works for you that is your good fortune. The only thing that matters is to use your model to help you buy the stock before the price rises, and sell the stock before the price drops.

If someone suggests another model which helps explain and predict price movements I would be all ears.

Doug