Interesting comments ... some of which I don't understand. If I've come off as dogmatic, I apologize (but not for my comments last year regarding politics ... on that, I will grant, I am dogmatic). My comments regarding stock value have always been pointed toward book value and I've tried to remind our audience that doesn't necessarily translate into market price. The math shows the likely book value and my hope is that will drive the market price. Whether it hits $30 - $40 or not ... doesn't seem likely, but who knows. Way too early to tell. But if a company's book value is, say $30, it's hard to argue that the market value shouldn't be at least close to that figure (all else being equal). Seems the higher BV would serve as a target price of some sort.

I know market psychology plays an important role, but I think that has more to do with a company's earnings prospects and since OMAG's earnings are probably too far into the future, I think current action is/should be more based on the book value story. I am well aware and agree with the fact that the power of the mind drives behavior. I was merely commenting that all this talk of a capital restructuring seems awfully premature.

" ... market driven by science." By that, do you mean the math I've been talking about over these last couple of years? I suppose stocks like OMAG are more driven by emotion/psychology/power of the mind (whatever you wish to call it) than more established companies with operational track records. But once a company has earnings history, I think "science", i.e. valuation models and technical analysis come more into play.