> Leo I really hope you know something I don't. Because when I bought
> this stock it was very overpriced like it has been for sometime now.
> But I thought I was getting a pullback. I have lost about 20 percent
> on this stock so far and like I said would really like to believe you.
> But the fact that it was so overvalued before leads me to wonder where
> you are getting this undervalued info from. How did you calculate it?
> And why has Pope, Michael C from FHCO been selling every single share
> he owns since September. He has been converting and selling for the
> last month. Including today. Do you think he knows something we don't.

> As you see even today he sold almost 20,000 shares he now only owns
> 1,000 shares but I think we will see him convert some more. Again
> please share your information with us. Otherwise I get this feeling
> like someone is trying to raise false hype. I really hope this is not
> the case and it will see much better days.

> Sep 16 16,700
> Sep 15 40,000
> Sep 14 15,000
> Sep 11 19,250
> Aug 26 92,950
> Aug 17 10,636
> Aug 11 9,918

> On Sep 18, 5:45 pm, leo <tupapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It looks like it found resistance on the 50 day moving average. This
> > company is undervalue. Good price to jump in.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> the only half ass way I could really find to calculate the fair value
> of the stock would take the EPS and divide it by 4%. This is not great
> seeing as the company is small and volitile. But I don't know to much
> about how to manually calculate these things. Anyway I came up with a
> number of 5.85 for the fair value based on EPS. You posted when the
> stock was at 5.53 so that would not be undervalued but right on
> target. So your statement to get people excited does not hold water.
> Then taking into account the sell offs. I was excited about the
> 12million sale but it didn't do much to the price and it continues
> down. Also like I posted above I searched your posts on google and you
> have a history of making false hype even around stocks that no longer
> exist today. I would really like it if someone else was to contribute
> to this discussion since I am not that knowledgeable on this subject.

> On Sep 21, 8:37 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:

> > Again like I said the first time. Show how you got this info. I want
> > to see what math you used. Show your numbers and math. The numbers
> > will speak for themselves. When I look up the formula to calculate
> > this I can not see how you got it. And he didn't just sell what he
> > had. He keeps converting stocks that he didn't have before. Using a
> > stock option and then sells them. Then converts more. He can keep
> > doing this until there is no more. And if you look at his sell offs
> > they are the catalyst to the huge price drops. Especially the 100,000
> > one that caused a more then a 20 percent fall. I think he got wise and
> > started selling smaller sums more often to keep the stock from falling
> > so badly. Anyway you said 2 times now you have information about it
> > being undervalued. Please post your numbers and your math. I can
> > easily then see if what you are saying holds water. But I can not see
> > it at this time. Considering the stock price and the companies income.

> > On Sep 21, 7:56 pm, leo <tupapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I got the undervalued info from the financial statements and calculate
> > > how much the price per share should be.
> > > Yes, you absolutly right about this guy selling everything he owns,
> > > and today the CEO sold 20000 share.
> > > I like this company but dont like when insiders start selling.

> > > On Sep 18, 8:33 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:

> > > > Leo I really hope you know something I don't. Because when I bought
> > > > this stock it was very overpriced like it has been for sometime now.
> > > > But I thought I was getting a pullback. I have lost about 20 percent
> > > > on this stock so far and like I said would really like to believe you.
> > > > But the fact that it was so overvalued before leads me to wonder where
> > > > you are getting this undervalued info from. How did you calculate it?
> > > > And why has Pope, Michael C from FHCO been selling every single share
> > > > he owns since September. He has been converting and selling for the
> > > > last month. Including today. Do you think he knows something we don't.

> > > > As you see even today he sold almost 20,000 shares he now only owns
> > > > 1,000 shares but I think we will see him convert some more. Again
> > > > please share your information with us. Otherwise I get this feeling
> > > > like someone is trying to raise false hype. I really hope this is not
> > > > the case and it will see much better days.

> > > > Sep 16 16,700
> > > > Sep 15 40,000
> > > > Sep 14 15,000
> > > > Sep 11 19,250
> > > > Aug 26 92,950
> > > > Aug 17 10,636
> > > > Aug 11 9,918

> > > > On Sep 18, 5:45 pm, leo <tupapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > It looks like it found resistance on the 50 day moving average. This
> > > > > company is undervalue. Good price to jump in.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -

> Theturko you did exactly what I did. But I got I think an 8% I thought
> I was getting a quick buck. I am a very small time trader and have
> cleared out the last 2 months of gains I have had as well. The drops
> in price do match up to the stock sell offs. The 100,000 one caused
> that drop that we bought on. I think it caused a cascade of flooding
> the market with 2 times as many shares in one day. I think this also
> caused many peoples stop losses to hit and caused more selling. And
> people reading the insider selling probably caused some aswell. And
> then if you look at the other days it went down the same guy was again
> selling off 20 or 40 thousand shares that day. I think now everyone is
> freaked out and no one trust this stock. Plus again the sell offs have
> been happening at a regular basis. It really made me upset that the
> 12million sale didn't even make the stock rise a little. This stock is
> making me crazy.

> On Sep 21, 9:13 pm, theturko <cengiz.to...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Very frustrating.. I've lost a bit over 20% myself, and there's really
> > no real rhyme or reason as to why it goes down ALMOST EVERY DAY.

> > I jumped in at exactly the wrong time, I thought that 10% drop a few
> > weeks back was the perfect time, now its just offsetting all my gains
> > I've had.

> > On Sep 21, 12:59 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:

> > > the only half ass way I could really find to calculate the fair value
> > > of the stock would take the EPS and divide it by 4%. This is not great
> > > seeing as the company is small and volitile. But I don't know to much
> > > about how to manually calculate these things. Anyway I came up with a
> > > number of 5.85 for the fair value based on EPS. You posted when the
> > > stock was at 5.53 so that would not be undervalued but right on
> > > target. So your statement to get people excited does not hold water.
> > > Then taking into account the sell offs. I was excited about the
> > > 12million sale but it didn't do much to the price and it continues
> > > down. Also like I posted above I searched your posts on google and you
> > > have a history of making false hype even around stocks that no longer
> > > exist today. I would really like it if someone else was to contribute
> > > to this discussion since I am not that knowledgeable on this subject.

> > > On Sep 21, 8:37 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:

> > > > Again like I said the first time. Show how you got this info. I want
> > > > to see what math you used. Show your numbers and math. The numbers
> > > > will speak for themselves. When I look up the formula to calculate
> > > > this I can not see how you got it. And he didn't just sell what he
> > > > had. He keeps converting stocks that he didn't have before. Using a
> > > > stock option and then sells them. Then converts more. He can keep
> > > > doing this until there is no more. And if you look at his sell offs
> > > > they are the catalyst to the huge price drops. Especially the 100,000
> > > > one that caused a more then a 20 percent fall. I think he got wise and
> > > > started selling smaller sums more often to keep the stock from falling
> > > > so badly. Anyway you said 2 times now you have information about it
> > > > being undervalued. Please post your numbers and your math. I can
> > > > easily then see if what you are saying holds water. But I can not see
> > > > it at this time. Considering the stock price and the companies income.

> > > > On Sep 21, 7:56 pm, leo <tupapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > I got the undervalued info from the financial statements and calculate
> > > > > how much the price per share should be.
> > > > > Yes, you absolutly right about this guy selling everything he owns,
> > > > > and today the CEO sold 20000 share.
> > > > > I like this company but dont like when insiders start selling.

> > > > > On Sep 18, 8:33 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > Leo I really hope you know something I don't. Because when I bought
> > > > > > this stock it was very overpriced like it has been for sometime now.
> > > > > > But I thought I was getting a pullback. I have lost about 20 percent
> > > > > > on this stock so far and like I said would really like to believe you.
> > > > > > But the fact that it was so overvalued before leads me to wonder where
> > > > > > you are getting this undervalued info from. How did you calculate it?
> > > > > > And why has Pope, Michael C from FHCO been selling every single share
> > > > > > he owns since September. He has been converting and selling for the
> > > > > > last month. Including today. Do you think he knows something we don't.

> > > > > > As you see even today he sold almost 20,000 shares he now only owns
> > > > > > 1,000 shares but I think we will see him convert some more. Again
> > > > > > please share your information with us. Otherwise I get this feeling
> > > > > > like someone is trying to raise false hype. I really hope this is not
> > > > > > the case and it will see much better days.

> > > > > > Sep 16 16,700
> > > > > > Sep 15 40,000
> > > > > > Sep 14 15,000
> > > > > > Sep 11 19,250
> > > > > > Aug 26 92,950
> > > > > > Aug 17 10,636
> > > > > > Aug 11 9,918

> > > > > > On Sep 18, 5:45 pm, leo <tupapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > It looks like it found resistance on the 50 day moving average. This
> > > > > > > company is undervalue. Good price to jump in.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> Theturko you did exactly what I did. But I got I think an 8% I thought
> I was getting a quick buck. I am a very small time trader and have
> cleared out the last 2 months of gains I have had as well. The drops
> in price do match up to the stock sell offs. The 100,000 one caused
> that drop that we bought on. I think it caused a cascade of flooding
> the market with 2 times as many shares in one day. I think this also
> caused many peoples stop losses to hit and caused more selling. And
> people reading the insider selling probably caused some aswell. And
> then if you look at the other days it went down the same guy was again
> selling off 20 or 40 thousand shares that day. I think now everyone is
> freaked out and no one trust this stock. Plus again the sell offs have
> been happening at a regular basis. It really made me upset that the
> 12million sale didn't even make the stock rise a little. This stock is
> making me crazy.

> On Sep 21, 9:13 pm, theturko <cengiz.to...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Very frustrating.. I've lost a bit over 20% myself, and there's really
> > no real rhyme or reason as to why it goes down ALMOST EVERY DAY.

> > I jumped in at exactly the wrong time, I thought that 10% drop a few
> > weeks back was the perfect time, now its just offsetting all my gains
> > I've had.

> > On Sep 21, 12:59 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:

> > > the only half ass way I could really find to calculate the fair value
> > > of the stock would take the EPS and divide it by 4%. This is not great
> > > seeing as the company is small and volitile. But I don't know to much
> > > about how to manually calculate these things. Anyway I came up with a
> > > number of 5.85 for the fair value based on EPS. You posted when the
> > > stock was at 5.53 so that would not be undervalued but right on
> > > target. So your statement to get people excited does not hold water.
> > > Then taking into account the sell offs. I was excited about the
> > > 12million sale but it didn't do much to the price and it continues
> > > down. Also like I posted above I searched your posts on google and you
> > > have a history of making false hype even around stocks that no longer
> > > exist today. I would really like it if someone else was to contribute
> > > to this discussion since I am not that knowledgeable on this subject.

> > > On Sep 21, 8:37 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:

> > > > Again like I said the first time. Show how you got this info. I want
> > > > to see what math you used. Show your numbers and math. The numbers
> > > > will speak for themselves. When I look up the formula to calculate
> > > > this I can not see how you got it. And he didn't just sell what he
> > > > had. He keeps converting stocks that he didn't have before. Using a
> > > > stock option and then sells them. Then converts more. He can keep
> > > > doing this until there is no more. And if you look at his sell offs
> > > > they are the catalyst to the huge price drops. Especially the 100,000
> > > > one that caused a more then a 20 percent fall. I think he got wise and
> > > > started selling smaller sums more often to keep the stock from falling
> > > > so badly. Anyway you said 2 times now you have information about it
> > > > being undervalued. Please post your numbers and your math. I can
> > > > easily then see if what you are saying holds water. But I can not see
> > > > it at this time. Considering the stock price and the companies income.

> > > > On Sep 21, 7:56 pm, leo <tupapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > I got the undervalued info from the financial statements and calculate
> > > > > how much the price per share should be.
> > > > > Yes, you absolutly right about this guy selling everything he owns,
> > > > > and today the CEO sold 20000 share.
> > > > > I like this company but dont like when insiders start selling.

> > > > > On Sep 18, 8:33 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > Leo I really hope you know something I don't. Because when I bought
> > > > > > this stock it was very overpriced like it has been for sometime now.
> > > > > > But I thought I was getting a pullback. I have lost about 20 percent
> > > > > > on this stock so far and like I said would really like to believe you.
> > > > > > But the fact that it was so overvalued before leads me to wonder where
> > > > > > you are getting this undervalued info from. How did you calculate it?
> > > > > > And why has Pope, Michael C from FHCO been selling every single share
> > > > > > he owns since September. He has been converting and selling for the
> > > > > > last month. Including today. Do you think he knows something we don't.

> > > > > > As you see even today he sold almost 20,000 shares he now only owns
> > > > > > 1,000 shares but I think we will see him convert some more. Again
> > > > > > please share your information with us. Otherwise I get this feeling
> > > > > > like someone is trying to raise false hype. I really hope this is not
> > > > > > the case and it will see much better days.

> > > > > > Sep 16 16,700
> > > > > > Sep 15 40,000
> > > > > > Sep 14 15,000
> > > > > > Sep 11 19,250
> > > > > > Aug 26 92,950
> > > > > > Aug 17 10,636
> > > > > > Aug 11 9,918

> > > > > > On Sep 18, 5:45 pm, leo <tupapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > It looks like it found resistance on the 50 day moving average. This
> > > > > > > company is undervalue. Good price to jump in.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> Joking aside can you elaborate just a little.

> On Sep 21, 10:13 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Nevermind. Ignore my last. She works for nasdaq, not FHCO. I thought
> > there was some kind of hidden asset that is not showing on the balance
> > sheet but my analysis was inaccurate. Sell now while you still can.

> > On Sep 21, 4:36 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:

> > > Theturko you did exactly what I did. But I got I think an 8% I thought
> > > I was getting a quick buck. I am a very small time trader and have
> > > cleared out the last 2 months of gains I have had as well. The drops
> > > in price do match up to the stock sell offs. The 100,000 one caused
> > > that drop that we bought on. I think it caused a cascade of flooding
> > > the market with 2 times as many shares in one day. I think this also
> > > caused many peoples stop losses to hit and caused more selling. And
> > > people reading the insider selling probably caused some aswell. And
> > > then if you look at the other days it went down the same guy was again
> > > selling off 20 or 40 thousand shares that day. I think now everyone is
> > > freaked out and no one trust this stock. Plus again the sell offs have
> > > been happening at a regular basis. It really made me upset that the
> > > 12million sale didn't even make the stock rise a little. This stock is
> > > making me crazy.

> > > On Sep 21, 9:13 pm, theturko <cengiz.to...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Very frustrating.. I've lost a bit over 20% myself, and there's really
> > > > no real rhyme or reason as to why it goes down ALMOST EVERY DAY.

> > > > I jumped in at exactly the wrong time, I thought that 10% drop a few
> > > > weeks back was the perfect time, now its just offsetting all my gains
> > > > I've had.

> > > > On Sep 21, 12:59 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:

> > > > > the only half ass way I could really find to calculate the fair value
> > > > > of the stock would take the EPS and divide it by 4%. This is not great
> > > > > seeing as the company is small and volitile. But I don't know to much
> > > > > about how to manually calculate these things. Anyway I came up with a
> > > > > number of 5.85 for the fair value based on EPS. You posted when the
> > > > > stock was at 5.53 so that would not be undervalued but right on
> > > > > target. So your statement to get people excited does not hold water.
> > > > > Then taking into account the sell offs. I was excited about the
> > > > > 12million sale but it didn't do much to the price and it continues
> > > > > down. Also like I posted above I searched your posts on google and you
> > > > > have a history of making false hype even around stocks that no longer
> > > > > exist today. I would really like it if someone else was to contribute
> > > > > to this discussion since I am not that knowledgeable on this subject.

> > > > > On Sep 21, 8:37 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > Again like I said the first time. Show how you got this info. I want
> > > > > > to see what math you used. Show your numbers and math. The numbers
> > > > > > will speak for themselves. When I look up the formula to calculate
> > > > > > this I can not see how you got it. And he didn't just sell what he
> > > > > > had. He keeps converting stocks that he didn't have before. Using a
> > > > > > stock option and then sells them. Then converts more. He can keep
> > > > > > doing this until there is no more. And if you look at his sell offs
> > > > > > they are the catalyst to the huge price drops. Especially the 100,000
> > > > > > one that caused a more then a 20 percent fall. I think he got wise and
> > > > > > started selling smaller sums more often to keep the stock from falling
> > > > > > so badly. Anyway you said 2 times now you have information about it
> > > > > > being undervalued. Please post your numbers and your math. I can
> > > > > > easily then see if what you are saying holds water. But I can not see
> > > > > > it at this time. Considering the stock price and the companies income.

> > > > > > On Sep 21, 7:56 pm, leo <tupapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > I got the undervalued info from the financial statements and calculate
> > > > > > > how much the price per share should be.
> > > > > > > Yes, you absolutly right about this guy selling everything he owns,
> > > > > > > and today the CEO sold 20000 share.
> > > > > > > I like this company but dont like when insiders start selling.

> > > > > > > On Sep 18, 8:33 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > Leo I really hope you know something I don't. Because when I bought
> > > > > > > > this stock it was very overpriced like it has been for sometime now.
> > > > > > > > But I thought I was getting a pullback. I have lost about 20 percent
> > > > > > > > on this stock so far and like I said would really like to believe you.
> > > > > > > > But the fact that it was so overvalued before leads me to wonder where
> > > > > > > > you are getting this undervalued info from. How did you calculate it?
> > > > > > > > And why has Pope, Michael C from FHCO been selling every single share
> > > > > > > > he owns since September. He has been converting and selling for the
> > > > > > > > last month. Including today. Do you think he knows something we don't.

> > > > > > > > As you see even today he sold almost 20,000 shares he now only owns
> > > > > > > > 1,000 shares but I think we will see him convert some more. Again
> > > > > > > > please share your information with us. Otherwise I get this feeling
> > > > > > > > like someone is trying to raise false hype. I really hope this is not
> > > > > > > > the case and it will see much better days.

> > > > > > > > Sep 16 16,700
> > > > > > > > Sep 15 40,000
> > > > > > > > Sep 14 15,000
> > > > > > > > Sep 11 19,250
> > > > > > > > Aug 26 92,950
> > > > > > > > Aug 17 10,636
> > > > > > > > Aug 11 9,918

> > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 5:45 pm, leo <tupapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > It looks like it found resistance on the 50 day moving average. This
> > > > > > > > > company is undervalue. Good price to jump in.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> Sorry I didn't know your just trying to get attention. I thought there
> would be more mature people talking here. I care about money, and take
> it seriously. I don't spend my time posting on random forums to get
> attention.

> On Sep 21, 10:27 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Ug. You are taking a keen eye on this discussion forum. Do you really
> > care what to compare the logic of my thoughts on the company?

> > On Sep 21, 5:20 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:

> > > Joking aside can you elaborate just a little.

> > > On Sep 21, 10:13 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Nevermind. Ignore my last. She works for nasdaq, not FHCO. I thought
> > > > there was some kind of hidden asset that is not showing on the balance
> > > > sheet but my analysis was inaccurate. Sell now while you still can.

> > > > On Sep 21, 4:36 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:

> > > > > Theturko you did exactly what I did. But I got I think an 8% I thought
> > > > > I was getting a quick buck. I am a very small time trader and have
> > > > > cleared out the last 2 months of gains I have had as well. The drops
> > > > > in price do match up to the stock sell offs. The 100,000 one caused
> > > > > that drop that we bought on. I think it caused a cascade of flooding
> > > > > the market with 2 times as many shares in one day. I think this also
> > > > > caused many peoples stop losses to hit and caused more selling. And
> > > > > people reading the insider selling probably caused some aswell. And
> > > > > then if you look at the other days it went down the same guy was again
> > > > > selling off 20 or 40 thousand shares that day. I think now everyone is
> > > > > freaked out and no one trust this stock. Plus again the sell offs have
> > > > > been happening at a regular basis. It really made me upset that the
> > > > > 12million sale didn't even make the stock rise a little. This stock is
> > > > > making me crazy.

> > > > > On Sep 21, 9:13 pm, theturko <cengiz.to...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Very frustrating.. I've lost a bit over 20% myself, and there's really
> > > > > > no real rhyme or reason as to why it goes down ALMOST EVERY DAY.

> > > > > > I jumped in at exactly the wrong time, I thought that 10% drop a few
> > > > > > weeks back was the perfect time, now its just offsetting all my gains
> > > > > > I've had.

> > > > > > On Sep 21, 12:59 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > the only half ass way I could really find to calculate the fair value
> > > > > > > of the stock would take the EPS and divide it by 4%. This is not great
> > > > > > > seeing as the company is small and volitile. But I don't know to much
> > > > > > > about how to manually calculate these things. Anyway I came up with a
> > > > > > > number of 5.85 for the fair value based on EPS. You posted when the
> > > > > > > stock was at 5.53 so that would not be undervalued but right on
> > > > > > > target. So your statement to get people excited does not hold water.
> > > > > > > Then taking into account the sell offs. I was excited about the
> > > > > > > 12million sale but it didn't do much to the price and it continues
> > > > > > > down. Also like I posted above I searched your posts on google and you
> > > > > > > have a history of making false hype even around stocks that no longer
> > > > > > > exist today. I would really like it if someone else was to contribute
> > > > > > > to this discussion since I am not that knowledgeable on this subject.

> > > > > > > On Sep 21, 8:37 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > Again like I said the first time. Show how you got this info. I want
> > > > > > > > to see what math you used. Show your numbers and math. The numbers
> > > > > > > > will speak for themselves. When I look up the formula to calculate
> > > > > > > > this I can not see how you got it. And he didn't just sell what he
> > > > > > > > had. He keeps converting stocks that he didn't have before. Using a
> > > > > > > > stock option and then sells them. Then converts more. He can keep
> > > > > > > > doing this until there is no more. And if you look at his sell offs
> > > > > > > > they are the catalyst to the huge price drops. Especially the 100,000
> > > > > > > > one that caused a more then a 20 percent fall. I think he got wise and
> > > > > > > > started selling smaller sums more often to keep the stock from falling
> > > > > > > > so badly. Anyway you said 2 times now you have information about it
> > > > > > > > being undervalued. Please post your numbers and your math. I can
> > > > > > > > easily then see if what you are saying holds water. But I can not see
> > > > > > > > it at this time. Considering the stock price and the companies income.

> > > > > > > > On Sep 21, 7:56 pm, leo <tupapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > I got the undervalued info from the financial statements and calculate
> > > > > > > > > how much the price per share should be.
> > > > > > > > > Yes, you absolutly right about this guy selling everything he owns,
> > > > > > > > > and today the CEO sold 20000 share.
> > > > > > > > > I like this company but dont like when insiders start selling.

> > > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 8:33 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > Leo I really hope you know something I don't. Because when I bought
> > > > > > > > > > this stock it was very overpriced like it has been for sometime now.
> > > > > > > > > > But I thought I was getting a pullback. I have lost about 20 percent
> > > > > > > > > > on this stock so far and like I said would really like to believe you.
> > > > > > > > > > But the fact that it was so overvalued before leads me to wonder where
> > > > > > > > > > you are getting this undervalued info from. How did you calculate it?
> > > > > > > > > > And why has Pope, Michael C from FHCO been selling every single share
> > > > > > > > > > he owns since

> Thank you that good food for thought. I didn't think the company was
> in some kind of trouble I just thought it was that sell of he was
> doing that really caused it to go out of favor. However since I have a
> much bigger stake in this that I should have I still worry over it.
> But thanks for the input.

> On Sep 21, 11:20 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Im having a little fun. Actually I wrote up a complete analysis a
> > couple of hours ago but then decided against it and deleted it. I
> > researched this company some months ago but had my doubts at the time
> > so I left it alone but I saw that its been dropping so I bought a
> > little into it today. Not a large purchase, just a couple of chips on
> > the table. My mind does not really like redoing something that has
> > already been written so this isnt going to be as clear or thorough as
> > the time earlier today that I erased.

> > The guy who posted earlier about it being undervalued, although I kind
> > of agree with him, he is probably just a goober. I think that it is
> > undervalued (or atleast not OVERvalued) for the following reasons:

> > -I calculated the adjusted 10 year sales growth rate at 24% with the
> > last 5 years being higher than that. The pe ratio is 22. The earnings
> > growth is MUCH higher than 24% but I dont think its sustainable and
> > the company has only been profitable since 2006 so theres not much to
> > compare.

> > -in condom discussion forums, outside of women complaining about the
> > strangeness of these things and the "squeakiness", they also complain
> > about female condoms being hard to find so that tells me that there is
> > a lot more potential available for thsi company than what is being
> > utilized. Plus the company says that the annual market for condoms is
> > 3billion and they only sold abotu 30 million last year so they still
> > have lots of room. The strange and squeaky opinions kind of bothered
> > me at first but then I realized how wierd male condoms are in reality
> > but peopel deal with them beause we have gotten used to them over time
> > so its likely that some people will get used to these too. Some women
> > use tampons some use maxipads and some take hormone shots to stop the
> > menstration. The check on all this is that I am a guy (and a gay one
> > at that) so knowing much about the validity of this contraption is
> > like asking a horse what life is like as a car. However, the 10 year
> > growth in sales is enough for me to believe that this thing is useful
> > for some people.

> > -The balance sheet is strong

> > -This might be a good buyout candidate

> > About the price fluctuation, I do not think that it is much of a
> > concern. I bought BAGL at 6/share only to watch it drop to 2.50 and
> > then go up to 13 where I sold. I bought CMG at 50 right after that it
> > dropped to 40 and now it is sitting at 90 something. His selling does
> > not worry me too much, its his business. There could be some kind of
> > fundamental change going on with the foundation of the company but if
> > that is the case then I will take the loss and move on but I think
> > that it is unlikely that the drop from 7 to 5 is indicative of that.
> > Last month some patent of theirs expired, there is or is going to be a
> > comparative study of their condoms with some other female condom
> > product, maybe there is some kind of regulatory change or some sign
> > that the governmetn orders are going to be dropped or reduced, maybe
> > one of the big guys are starting to look into making these. It could
> > be any of those things going on ot more but if he knows something in
> > those regards that he is not telling us then that is a big nono.

> > As far as I am concerned they have a very strong argument to make as
> > to why people/governments shoudl be buying/using. That is what is
> > attracting me here. Ill probably stay as long as they have enough
> > fodder to keep making that case.  Now this analysis is not nearly as
> > thought out as the one that I wrote before. Im mostly just vomiting it
> > all out. If you have anything good to add about this perhaps we can
> > investigate into it further.

> > On Sep 21, 5:32 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:

> > > Sorry I didn't know your just trying to get attention. I thought there
> > > would be more mature people talking here. I care about money, and take
> > > it seriously. I don't spend my time posting on random forums to get
> > > attention.

> > > On Sep 21, 10:27 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Ug. You are taking a keen eye on this discussion forum. Do you really
> > > > care what to compare the logic of my thoughts on the company?

> > > > On Sep 21, 5:20 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:

> > > > > Joking aside can you elaborate just a little.

> > > > > On Sep 21, 10:13 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Nevermind. Ignore my last. She works for nasdaq, not FHCO. I thought
> > > > > > there was some kind of hidden asset that is not showing on the balance
> > > > > > sheet but my analysis was inaccurate. Sell now while you still can.

> > > > > > On Sep 21, 4:36 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > Theturko you did exactly what I did. But I got I think an 8% I thought
> > > > > > > I was getting a quick buck. I am a very small time trader and have
> > > > > > > cleared out the last 2 months of gains I have had as well. The drops
> > > > > > > in price do match up to the stock sell offs. The 100,000 one caused
> > > > > > > that drop that we bought on. I think it caused a cascade of flooding
> > > > > > > the market with 2 times as many shares in one day. I think this also
> > > > > > > caused many peoples stop losses to hit and caused more selling. And
> > > > > > > people reading the insider selling probably caused some aswell. And
> > > > > > > then if you look at the other days it went down the same guy was again
> > > > > > > selling off 20 or 40 thousand shares that day. I think now everyone is
> > > > > > > freaked out and no one trust this stock. Plus again the sell offs have
> > > > > > > been happening at a regular basis. It really made me upset that the
> > > > > > > 12million sale didn't even make the stock rise a little. This stock is
> > > > > > > making me crazy.

> > > > > > > On Sep 21, 9:13 pm, theturko <cengiz.to...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Very frustrating.. I've lost a bit over 20% myself, and there's really
> > > > > > > > no real rhyme or reason as to why it goes down ALMOST EVERY DAY.

> > > > > > > > I jumped in at exactly the wrong time, I thought that 10% drop a few
> > > > > > > > weeks back was the perfect time, now its just offsetting all my gains
> > > > > > > > I've had.

> > > > > > > > On Sep 21, 12:59 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > the only half ass way I could really find to calculate the fair value
> > > > > > > > > of the stock would take the EPS and divide it by 4%. This is not great
> > > > > > > > > seeing as the company is small and volitile. But I don't know to much
> > > > > > > > > about how to manually calculate these things. Anyway I came up with a
> > > > > > > > > number of 5.85 for the fair value based on EPS. You posted when the
> > > > > > > > > stock was at 5.53 so that would not be undervalued but right on
> > > > > > > > > target. So your statement to get people excited does not hold water.
> > > > > > > > > Then taking into account the sell offs. I was excited about the
> > > > > > > > > 12million sale but it didn't do much to the price and it continues
> > > > > > > > > down. Also like I posted above I searched your posts on google and you
> > > > > > > > > have a history of making false hype even around stocks that no longer
> > > > > > > > > exist today. I would really like it if someone else was to contribute
> > > > > > > > > to this discussion since I am not that knowledgeable on this subject.

> > > > > > > > > On Sep 21, 8:37 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > Again like I said the first time. Show how you got this info. I want
> > > > > > > > > > to see what math you used. Show your numbers and math. The numbers
> > > > > > > > > > will speak

> Well female condoms have been around for a long long time. They don't
> catch on because they are kinda crazy in operation. If it's the kind
> I'm thinking of they have 2 big rings one is inserted and the other is
> outside. It would make sex really lame and it's very impractical. they
> male way is about 1000 times easier and doesn't kill that much of the
> sexual experience. That being said no matter how much they suck these
> guys are the only ones making them and they are getting aid money to
> give them to 3rd world countries that will never actually use them.
> However again they are the only ones and they basically have
> guaranteed money from aid so as a company it sounds good but it will
> never explode and be in every store. So they have a niche and they are
> filling it. But don't expect your girlfriend or wife to be pulling out
> a female condom anytime soon. It's nothing new, it's just not as good
> as other ideas. I remember them showing videos on national geographic
> about them trying to tell woman and men in Africa to use normal
> condoms. They just laugh at them. Africans need to have 12 kids so
> they can let 6 die before they hit puberty and then let the other 3
> die from fighting. That still leave a population that is growing much
> to fast. That is of course because of western influence. Without the
> west child death percentage would rise and the population would
> stabilize. With western help we can make the child death percentage
> drop alittle make the population boom and in the end have many more
> people die because no the land is far more over populated and now the
> west need to send even more help since the population in Africa is no
> were near sustainable numbers anymore. Alot of dumb people with good
> intentions making a much bigger problem. But those people keep sending
> money to aid and fhco gets some of that money. So I would think they
> should be ok. But female condoms I don't think are going to be seen
> outside of this. Since 20 years ago we learned about male and female
> condoms in school, and I think in another 2 years condoms will still
> be the same and male.

> On Sep 22, 12:37 am, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yeah I made that mistake once before where I made too high of a stake
> > and the price went tumbling down. It put me in a bad place because as
> > it dropped it didnt make sense to buy more because it would have made
> > my stake unreasonable. Its recovered back up to where im at pretty
> > much zero loss or gain and hopefully ill start to get a chance to
> > balance out the portfolio a little. One thing that strikes me strange
> > about this company....they have been doing this for 10 years and they
> > still do not have a substantial stake in the public market. Why could
> > that be? They say that they are better off without it, and they can be
> > right as their growth from USAID and whatnot had been quite fine but
> > why not put the things on store shelves?

> > When I think about it I come to 2 possibly dangerous conclusions, 1 -
> > there is something there that they are worse off if these things are
> > selling in the market that they are going without it...like it could
> > get the attention of Trojan and Durex?? I cant think of a better
> > reason or why it would get their attention more than not on the store
> > shelves. or 2- people wont but them. Maybe they get good sales from
> > the public agencies via their argument that pulls on the heart strings
> > but ultimately its not a desired product.

> > What do you think about these?

> > On Sep 21, 7:18 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:

> > > Thank you that good food for thought. I didn't think the company was
> > > in some kind of trouble I just thought it was that sell of he was
> > > doing that really caused it to go out of favor. However since I have a
> > > much bigger stake in this that I should have I still worry over it.
> > > But thanks for the input.

> > > On Sep 21, 11:20 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Im having a little fun. Actually I wrote up a complete analysis a
> > > > couple of hours ago but then decided against it and deleted it. I
> > > > researched this company some months ago but had my doubts at the time
> > > > so I left it alone but I saw that its been dropping so I bought a
> > > > little into it today. Not a large purchase, just a couple of chips on
> > > > the table. My mind does not really like redoing something that has
> > > > already been written so this isnt going to be as clear or thorough as
> > > > the time earlier today that I erased.

> > > > The guy who posted earlier about it being undervalued, although I kind
> > > > of agree with him, he is probably just a goober. I think that it is
> > > > undervalued (or atleast not OVERvalued) for the following reasons:

> > > > -I calculated the adjusted 10 year sales growth rate at 24% with the
> > > > last 5 years being higher than that. The pe ratio is 22. The earnings
> > > > growth is MUCH higher than 24% but I dont think its sustainable and
> > > > the company has only been profitable since 2006 so theres not much to
> > > > compare.

> > > > -in condom discussion forums, outside of women complaining about the
> > > > strangeness of these things and the "squeakiness", they also complain
> > > > about female condoms being hard to find so that tells me that there is
> > > > a lot more potential available for thsi company than what is being
> > > > utilized. Plus the company says that the annual market for condoms is
> > > > 3billion and they only sold abotu 30 million last year so they still
> > > > have lots of room. The strange and squeaky opinions kind of bothered
> > > > me at first but then I realized how wierd male condoms are in reality
> > > > but peopel deal with them beause we have gotten used to them over time
> > > > so its likely that some people will get used to these too. Some women
> > > > use tampons some use maxipads and some take hormone shots to stop the
> > > > menstration. The check on all this is that I am a guy (and a gay one
> > > > at that) so knowing much about the validity of this contraption is
> > > > like asking a horse what life is like as a car. However, the 10 year
> > > > growth in sales is enough for me to believe that this thing is useful
> > > > for some people.

> > > > -The balance sheet is strong

> > > > -This might be a good buyout candidate

> > > > About the price fluctuation, I do not think that it is much of a
> > > > concern. I bought BAGL at 6/share only to watch it drop to 2.50 and
> > > > then go up to 13 where I sold. I bought CMG at 50 right after that it
> > > > dropped to 40 and now it is sitting at 90 something. His selling does
> > > > not worry me too much, its his business. There could be some kind of
> > > > fundamental change going on with the foundation of the company but if
> > > > that is the case then I will take the loss and move on but I think
> > > > that it is unlikely that the drop from 7 to 5 is indicative

> Ahhh. Yes. Very helpful perspective.

> If its not catching on in the population, I have to wonder why/how
> they keep on getting more and more sales growth every year. It seems
> to me that they have a very strong argument that these things are for
> women's rights and protection: "if aid is paying for condoms, why only
> get MALE condoms? What about women's protection?" It makes sense that
> if aid is going to be paying to put a stop to AIDS then they should
> get both types availale. But then, if the people are not using the
> females, why do the orders keep coming in?  Out of an entire bell
> curve of a population, some of the humains out there have to prefer
> these things? (Yes? No? Maybe so?) This whole female condom thing is
> very surreal for me because I happen to be gay, but a very inactive
> one at that so this is like trying to know what it is like for a fish
> to breathe water. I probably shouldnt be tinkering in this area at all
> but the company/product is simple and the 10 year growth has been so
> nice and stable.

> On a positive note: I am tending to think that even male condoms are a
> bit strange in reality but we humains are all just generally used to
> them because of necessity and custom. I guess I get this perspective
> because I have been with a variety of males and I have never met
> anyone who really 'likes' them but we all, well the smart ones, just
> kind of collectively put up with them. Perhaps as these female condoms
> are getting disbursed into the population they will, for whatever
> preferential reasons, could become a standard practice for X
> percentage of the population? Have you tried one of these
> contraptions? Has anyone out there who is reading this? Do they really
> SQUEEK?? lol.

> The other positive note is that FHCO has evolved from FC1 and now have
> the improved FC2, perhaps in their research there is the potential to
> make even better FCs?

> I see what you are saying about africa. That population boom thing
> seems to be something that happens to a lot of countries as they
> transition out of the stone age to join us in the modern world. India
> and China both used to have an obnoxious population growth but have
> since contained using their respective methods. Im holding on to hope
> that these african countries can accomplish the same. Perhaps worth
> the effort to try for it as its better for a country to control
> population w lifestyle choice rather than nature controlling it for
> them. It does not seem like its an impossible leap to get to the point
> where they are getting an education and a worthwhile existence
> (hopefully also using lots of female condoms!). Many countries have
> and are accomplishing this.

> Why did you buy?

> On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:

> > Well female condoms have been around for a long long time. They don't
> > catch on because they are kinda crazy in operation. If it's the kind
> > I'm thinking of they have 2 big rings one is inserted and the other is
> > outside. It would make sex really lame and it's very impractical. they
> > male way is about 1000 times easier and doesn't kill that much of the
> > sexual experience. That being said no matter how much they suck these
> > guys are the only ones making them and they are getting aid money to
> > give them to 3rd world countries that will never actually use them.
> > However again they are the only ones and they basically have
> > guaranteed money from aid so as a company it sounds good but it will
> > never explode and be in every store. So they have a niche and they are
> > filling it. But don't expect your girlfriend or wife to be pulling out
> > a female condom anytime soon. It's nothing new, it's just not as good
> > as other ideas. I remember them showing videos on national geographic
> > about them trying to tell woman and men in Africa to use normal
> > condoms. They just laugh at them. Africans need to have 12 kids so
> > they can let 6 die before they hit puberty and then let the other 3
> > die from fighting. That still leave a population that is growing much
> > to fast. That is of course because of western influence. Without the
> > west child death percentage would rise and the population would
> > stabilize. With western help we can make the child death percentage
> > drop alittle make the population boom and in the end have many more
> > people die because no the land is far more over populated and now the
> > west need to send even more help since the population in Africa is no
> > were near sustainable numbers anymore. Alot of dumb people with good
> > intentions making a much bigger problem. But those people keep sending
> > money to aid and fhco gets some of that money. So I would think they
> > should be ok. But female condoms I don't think are going to be seen
> > outside of this. Since 20 years ago we learned about male and female
> > condoms in school, and I think in another 2 years condoms will still
> > be the same and male.

> > On Sep 22, 12:37 am, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Yeah I made that mistake once before where I made too high of a stake
> > > and the price went tumbling down. It put me in a bad place because as
> > > it dropped it didnt make sense to buy more because it would have made
> > > my stake unreasonable. Its recovered back up to where im at pretty
> > > much zero loss or gain and hopefully ill start to get a chance to
> > > balance out the portfolio a little. One thing that strikes me strange
> > > about this company....they have been doing this for 10 years and they
> > > still do not have a substantial stake in the public market. Why could
> > > that be? They say that they are better off without it, and they can be
> > > right as their growth from USAID and whatnot had been quite fine but
> > > why not put the things on store shelves?

> > > When I think about it I come to 2 possibly dangerous conclusions, 1 -
> > > there is something there that they are worse off if these things are
> > > selling in the market that they are going without it...like it could
> > > get the attention of Trojan and Durex?? I cant think of a better
> > > reason or why it would get their attention more than not on the store
> > > shelves. or 2- people wont but them. Maybe they get good sales from
> > > the public agencies via their argument that pulls on the heart strings
> > > but ultimately its not a desired product.

> > > What do you think about these?

> > > On Sep 21, 7:18 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:

> > > > Thank you that good food for thought. I didn't think the company was
> > > > in some kind of trouble I just thought it was that sell of he was
> > > > doing that really caused it to go out of favor. However since I have a
> > > > much bigger stake in this that I should have I still worry over it.
> > > > But thanks for the input.

> > > > On Sep 21, 11:20 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Im having a little fun. Actually I wrote up a complete analysis a
> > > > > couple of hours ago but then decided against it and deleted it. I
> > > > > researched this company some months ago but had my doubts at the time
> > > > > so I left it alone but I saw that its been dropping so I bought a
> > > > > little into it today. Not a large purchase, just a couple of chips on
> > > > > the table. My mind does not really like redoing something that has
> > > > > already been written so this isnt going to be as clear or thorough as
> > > > > the time earlier today that I erased.

> > > > > The guy who posted earlier about it being undervalued, although I kind
> > > > > of agree with him, he is probably just a goober. I think that it is
> > > > > undervalued (or atleast not OVERvalued) for the following reasons:

> > > > > -I calculated the adjusted 10 year sales growth rate at 24% with the
> > > > > last 5 years being higher than that. The pe ratio is 22. The earnings
> > > > > growth is MUCH higher than 24% but I dont think its sustainable and
> > > > > the company has only been profitable since 2006 so theres not much to
> > > > > compare.

> > > > > -in condom discussion forums, outside of women complaining about the
> > > > > strangeness of these things and the "squeakiness", they also complain
> > > > > about female condoms being hard to find so that tells me that there is
> > > > > a lot more potential available for thsi company than what is being
> > > > > utilized. Plus the company says that the annual market for condoms is
> > > > > 3billion and they only sold abotu 30 million last year so they still
> > > > > have lots of room. The strange and squeaky opinions kind of bothered
> > > > > me at first but then I realized how wierd male condoms are in reality
> > > > > but peopel deal with them beause we have gotten used to them over time
> > > > > so its likely that some people will get used to these too.

> I got in here pretty early and saw a gain of about 60%. Watching the
> drop from the 7.50 mark to here is soooo painful, took about 40% out
> of my profits. I originally bought because the company was growing by
> leaps and bounds every day it seemed. Every week almost there would be
> another nugget of interesting news that would send the shares higher.
> Currently, I am baffled by why it has dropped so far so fast. I don't
> really see anything as having changed so much to warrant such a
> drastic sell-off. The balance sheet is still strong, and the main
> source of their income, aid for developing countries, should be
> picking up what with the economy starting to rise again. I could sell
> now and take a profit, but I think that I'm going to hang onto this
> one for a while, or until more news comes out. :/

> On Sep 21, 11:23 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Ahhh. Yes. Very helpful perspective.

> > If its not catching on in the population, I have to wonder why/how
> > they keep on getting more and more sales growth every year. It seems
> > to me that they have a very strong argument that these things are for
> > women's rights and protection: "if aid is paying for condoms, why only
> > get MALE condoms? What about women's protection?" It makes sense that
> > if aid is going to be paying to put a stop to AIDS then they should
> > get both types availale. But then, if the people are not using the
> > females, why do the orders keep coming in?  Out of an entire bell
> > curve of a population, some of the humains out there have to prefer
> > these things? (Yes? No? Maybe so?) This whole female condom thing is
> > very surreal for me because I happen to be gay, but a very inactive
> > one at that so this is like trying to know what it is like for a fish
> > to breathe water. I probably shouldnt be tinkering in this area at all
> > but the company/product is simple and the 10 year growth has been so
> > nice and stable.

> > On a positive note: I am tending to think that even male condoms are a
> > bit strange in reality but we humains are all just generally used to
> > them because of necessity and custom. I guess I get this perspective
> > because I have been with a variety of males and I have never met
> > anyone who really 'likes' them but we all, well the smart ones, just
> > kind of collectively put up with them. Perhaps as these female condoms
> > are getting disbursed into the population they will, for whatever
> > preferential reasons, could become a standard practice for X
> > percentage of the population? Have you tried one of these
> > contraptions? Has anyone out there who is reading this? Do they really
> > SQUEEK?? lol.

> > The other positive note is that FHCO has evolved from FC1 and now have
> > the improved FC2, perhaps in their research there is the potential to
> > make even better FCs?

> > I see what you are saying about africa. That population boom thing
> > seems to be something that happens to a lot of countries as they
> > transition out of the stone age to join us in the modern world. India
> > and China both used to have an obnoxious population growth but have
> > since contained using their respective methods. Im holding on to hope
> > that these african countries can accomplish the same. Perhaps worth
> > the effort to try for it as its better for a country to control
> > population w lifestyle choice rather than nature controlling it for
> > them. It does not seem like its an impossible leap to get to the point
> > where they are getting an education and a worthwhile existence
> > (hopefully also using lots of female condoms!). Many countries have
> > and are accomplishing this.

> > Why did you buy?

> > On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:

> > > Well female condoms have been around for a long long time. They don't
> > > catch on because they are kinda crazy in operation. If it's the kind
> > > I'm thinking of they have 2 big rings one is inserted and the other is
> > > outside. It would make sex really lame and it's very impractical. they
> > > male way is about 1000 times easier and doesn't kill that much of the
> > > sexual experience. That being said no matter how much they suck these
> > > guys are the only ones making them and they are getting aid money to
> > > give them to 3rd world countries that will never actually use them.
> > > However again they are the only ones and they basically have
> > > guaranteed money from aid so as a company it sounds good but it will
> > > never explode and be in every store. So they have a niche and they are
> > > filling it. But don't expect your girlfriend or wife to be pulling out
> > > a female condom anytime soon. It's nothing new, it's just not as good
> > > as other ideas. I remember them showing videos on national geographic
> > > about them trying to tell woman and men in Africa to use normal
> > > condoms. They just laugh at them. Africans need to have 12 kids so
> > > they can let 6 die before they hit puberty and then let the other 3
> > > die from fighting. That still leave a population that is growing much
> > > to fast. That is of course because of western influence. Without the
> > > west child death percentage would rise and the population would
> > > stabilize. With western help we can make the child death percentage
> > > drop alittle make the population boom and in the end have many more
> > > people die because no the land is far more over populated and now the
> > > west need to send even more help since the population in Africa is no
> > > were near sustainable numbers anymore. Alot of dumb people with good
> > > intentions making a much bigger problem. But those people keep sending
> > > money to aid and fhco gets some of that money. So I would think they
> > > should be ok. But female condoms I don't think are going to be seen
> > > outside of this. Since 20 years ago we learned about male and female
> > > condoms in school, and I think in another 2 years condoms will still
> > > be the same and male.

> > > On Sep 22, 12:37 am, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Yeah I made that mistake once before where I made too high of a stake
> > > > and the price went tumbling down. It put me in a bad place because as
> > > > it dropped it didnt make sense to buy more because it would have made
> > > > my stake unreasonable. Its recovered back up to where im at pretty
> > > > much zero loss or gain and hopefully ill start to get a chance to
> > > > balance out the portfolio a little. One thing that strikes me strange
> > > > about this company....they have been doing this for 10 years and they
> > > > still do not have a substantial stake in the public market. Why could
> > > > that be? They say that they are better off without it, and they can be
> > > > right as their growth from USAID and whatnot had been quite fine but
> > > > why not put the things on store shelves?

> > > > When I think about it I come to 2 possibly dangerous conclusions, 1 -
> > > > there is something there that they are worse off if these things are
> > > > selling in the market that they are going without it...like it could
> > > > get the attention of Trojan and Durex?? I cant think of a better
> > > > reason or why it would get their attention more than not on the store
> > > > shelves. or 2- people wont but them. Maybe they get good sales from
> > > > the public agencies via their argument that pulls on the heart strings
> > > > but ultimately its not a desired product.

> > > > What do you think about these?

> > > > On Sep 21, 7:18 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:

> > > > > Thank you that good food for thought. I didn't think the company was
> > > > > in some kind of trouble I just thought it was that sell of he was
> > > > > doing that really caused it to go out of favor. However since I have a
> > > > > much bigger stake in this that I should have I still worry over it.
> > > > > But thanks for the input.

> > > > > On Sep 21, 11:20 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Im having a little fun. Actually I wrote up a complete analysis a
> > > > > > couple of hours ago but then decided against it and deleted it. I
> > > > > > researched this company some months ago but had my doubts at the time
> > > > > > so I left it alone but I saw that its been dropping so I bought a
> > > > > > little into it today. Not a large purchase, just a couple of chips on
> > > > > > the table. My mind does not really like redoing something that has
> > > > > > already been written so this isnt going to be as clear or thorough as
> > > > > > the time earlier today that I erased.

> > > > > > The guy who posted earlier about it being undervalued, although I kind
> > > > > > of agree with him, he is probably just a goober. I think that it is
> > > > > > undervalued (or atleast not OVERvalued) for the following reasons:

> > > > > > -I calculated the adjusted 10 year sales growth rate at 24% with the
> > > > > > last 5 years being higher than that. The pe ratio is 22. The earnings
> > > > > > growth is MUCH higher than 24% but I dont think its sustainable and
> > > > > > the company has only been profitable since 2006 so theres not much to
> > > > > > compare.

> > > > > > -in condom discussion forums, outside of women complaining about the
> > > > > > strangeness of these things and the "squeakiness", they also complain
> > > > > > about female condoms being hard to find so that tells me that there is
> > > > > > a lot more potential available for thsi company than what is being
> > > > > > utilized. Plus the company says that the annual market for

> Wee. Look at her drop like a brick on Jupiter!

> On Sep 22, 3:47 pm, Aagwyn <parkershigg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I got in here pretty early and saw a gain of about 60%. Watching the
> > drop from the 7.50 mark to here is soooo painful, took about 40% out
> > of my profits. I originally bought because the company was growing by
> > leaps and bounds every day it seemed. Every week almost there would be
> > another nugget of interesting news that would send the shares higher.
> > Currently, I am baffled by why it has dropped so far so fast. I don't
> > really see anything as having changed so much to warrant such a
> > drastic sell-off. The balance sheet is still strong, and the main
> > source of their income, aid for developing countries, should be
> > picking up what with the economy starting to rise again. I could sell
> > now and take a profit, but I think that I'm going to hang onto this
> > one for a while, or until more news comes out. :/

> > On Sep 21, 11:23 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Ahhh. Yes. Very helpful perspective.

> > > If its not catching on in the population, I have to wonder why/how
> > > they keep on getting more and more sales growth every year. It seems
> > > to me that they have a very strong argument that these things are for
> > > women's rights and protection: "if aid is paying for condoms, why only
> > > get MALE condoms? What about women's protection?" It makes sense that
> > > if aid is going to be paying to put a stop to AIDS then they should
> > > get both types availale. But then, if the people are not using the
> > > females, why do the orders keep coming in?  Out of an entire bell
> > > curve of a population, some of the humains out there have to prefer
> > > these things? (Yes? No? Maybe so?) This whole female condom thing is
> > > very surreal for me because I happen to be gay, but a very inactive
> > > one at that so this is like trying to know what it is like for a fish
> > > to breathe water. I probably shouldnt be tinkering in this area at all
> > > but the company/product is simple and the 10 year growth has been so
> > > nice and stable.

> > > On a positive note: I am tending to think that even male condoms are a
> > > bit strange in reality but we humains are all just generally used to
> > > them because of necessity and custom. I guess I get this perspective
> > > because I have been with a variety of males and I have never met
> > > anyone who really 'likes' them but we all, well the smart ones, just
> > > kind of collectively put up with them. Perhaps as these female condoms
> > > are getting disbursed into the population they will, for whatever
> > > preferential reasons, could become a standard practice for X
> > > percentage of the population? Have you tried one of these
> > > contraptions? Has anyone out there who is reading this? Do they really
> > > SQUEEK?? lol.

> > > The other positive note is that FHCO has evolved from FC1 and now have
> > > the improved FC2, perhaps in their research there is the potential to
> > > make even better FCs?

> > > I see what you are saying about africa. That population boom thing
> > > seems to be something that happens to a lot of countries as they
> > > transition out of the stone age to join us in the modern world. India
> > > and China both used to have an obnoxious population growth but have
> > > since contained using their respective methods. Im holding on to hope
> > > that these african countries can accomplish the same. Perhaps worth
> > > the effort to try for it as its better for a country to control
> > > population w lifestyle choice rather than nature controlling it for
> > > them. It does not seem like its an impossible leap to get to the point
> > > where they are getting an education and a worthwhile existence
> > > (hopefully also using lots of female condoms!). Many countries have
> > > and are accomplishing this.

> > > Why did you buy?

> > > On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:

> > > > Well female condoms have been around for a long long time. They don't
> > > > catch on because they are kinda crazy in operation. If it's the kind
> > > > I'm thinking of they have 2 big rings one is inserted and the other is
> > > > outside. It would make sex really lame and it's very impractical. they
> > > > male way is about 1000 times easier and doesn't kill that much of the
> > > > sexual experience. That being said no matter how much they suck these
> > > > guys are the only ones making them and they are getting aid money to
> > > > give them to 3rd world countries that will never actually use them.
> > > > However again they are the only ones and they basically have
> > > > guaranteed money from aid so as a company it sounds good but it will
> > > > never explode and be in every store. So they have a niche and they are
> > > > filling it. But don't expect your girlfriend or wife to be pulling out
> > > > a female condom anytime soon. It's nothing new, it's just not as good
> > > > as other ideas. I remember them showing videos on national geographic
> > > > about them trying to tell woman and men in Africa to use normal
> > > > condoms. They just laugh at them. Africans need to have 12 kids so
> > > > they can let 6 die before they hit puberty and then let the other 3
> > > > die from fighting. That still leave a population that is growing much
> > > > to fast. That is of course because of western influence. Without the
> > > > west child death percentage would rise and the population would
> > > > stabilize. With western help we can make the child death percentage
> > > > drop alittle make the population boom and in the end have many more
> > > > people die because no the land is far more over populated and now the
> > > > west need to send even more help since the population in Africa is no
> > > > were near sustainable numbers anymore. Alot of dumb people with good
> > > > intentions making a much bigger problem. But those people keep sending
> > > > money to aid and fhco gets some of that money. So I would think they
> > > > should be ok. But female condoms I don't think are going to be seen
> > > > outside of this. Since 20 years ago we learned about male and female
> > > > condoms in school, and I think in another 2 years condoms will still
> > > > be the same and male.

> > > > On Sep 22, 12:37 am, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Yeah I made that mistake once before where I made too high of a stake
> > > > > and the price went tumbling down. It put me in a bad place because as
> > > > > it dropped it didnt make sense to buy more because it would have made
> > > > > my stake unreasonable. Its recovered back up to where im at pretty
> > > > > much zero loss or gain and hopefully ill start to get a chance to
> > > > > balance out the portfolio a little. One thing that strikes me strange
> > > > > about this company....they have been doing this for 10 years and they
> > > > > still do not have a substantial stake in the public market. Why could
> > > > > that be? They say that they are better off without it, and they can be
> > > > > right as their growth from USAID and whatnot had been quite fine but
> > > > > why not put the things on store shelves?

> > > > > When I think about it I come to 2 possibly dangerous conclusions, 1 -
> > > > > there is something there that they are worse off if these things are
> > > > > selling in the market that they are going without it...like it could
> > > > > get the attention of Trojan and Durex?? I cant think of a better
> > > > > reason or why it would get their attention more than not on the store
> > > > > shelves. or 2- people wont but them. Maybe they get good sales from
> > > > > the public agencies via their argument that pulls on the heart strings
> > > > > but ultimately its not a desired product.

> > > > > What do you think about these?

> > > > > On Sep 21, 7:18 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > Thank you that good food for thought. I didn't think the company was
> > > > > > in some kind of trouble I just thought it was that sell of he was
> > > > > > doing that really caused it to go out of favor. However since I have a
> > > > > > much bigger stake in this that I should have I still worry over it.
> > > > > > But thanks for the input.

> > > > > > On Sep 21, 11:20 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Im having a little fun. Actually I wrote up a complete analysis a
> > > > > > > couple of hours ago but then decided against it and deleted it. I
> > > > > > > researched this company some months ago but had my doubts at the time
> > > > > > > so I left it alone but I saw that its been dropping so I bought a
> > > > > > > little into it today. Not a large purchase, just a couple of chips on
> > > > > > > the table. My mind does not really like redoing something that has
> > > > > > > already been written so this isnt going to be as clear or thorough as
> > > > > > > the time earlier today that I erased.

> > > > > > > The guy who posted earlier about it being undervalued, although I kind
> > > > > > > of agree with him, he is probably just a goober. I think that it is
> > > > > > > undervalued (or atleast not OVERvalued) for the following reasons:

> > > > > > > -I calculated the adjusted 10 year sales growth rate at 24% with the
> > > > > > > last 5 years being higher than that. The pe ratio is 22. The earnings
> > > > > > > growth is MUCH higher than 24% but I dont think its sustainable and
> > > > > > > the company has only

> yes but when a stock only trades 100 thousand shares a day and you
> drop another hundred to sell at the lowest price it sure as hell will
> cause a crash. Anyway I want to know why it's still going down. Only
> sellers no buyers anymore. Will it ever stop?

> On Sep 24, 11:27 pm, Sleddawg63 <sleddaw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Parrish is 75 years old!  Who wouldn't cash in their chips after the
> > run this stock has had.  Probably doesn't condemn the state of this
> > stock.

> > On Sep 23, 2:13 pm, Stephen D <dola...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Wee. Look at her drop like a brick on Jupiter!

> > > On Sep 22, 3:47 pm, Aagwyn <parkershigg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > I got in here pretty early and saw a gain of about 60%. Watching the
> > > > drop from the 7.50 mark to here is soooo painful, took about 40% out
> > > > of my profits. I originally bought because the company was growing by
> > > > leaps and bounds every day it seemed. Every week almost there would be
> > > > another nugget of interesting news that would send the shares higher.
> > > > Currently, I am baffled by why it has dropped so far so fast. I don't
> > > > really see anything as having changed so much to warrant such a
> > > > drastic sell-off. The balance sheet is still strong, and the main
> > > > source of their income, aid for developing countries, should be
> > > > picking up what with the economy starting to rise again. I could sell
> > > > now and take a profit, but I think that I'm going to hang onto this
> > > > one for a while, or until more news comes out. :/

> > > > On Sep 21, 11:23 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Ahhh. Yes. Very helpful perspective.

> > > > > If its not catching on in the population, I have to wonder why/how
> > > > > they keep on getting more and more sales growth every year. It seems
> > > > > to me that they have a very strong argument that these things are for
> > > > > women's rights and protection: "if aid is paying for condoms, why only
> > > > > get MALE condoms? What about women's protection?" It makes sense that
> > > > > if aid is going to be paying to put a stop to AIDS then they should
> > > > > get both types availale. But then, if the people are not using the
> > > > > females, why do the orders keep coming in?  Out of an entire bell
> > > > > curve of a population, some of the humains out there have to prefer
> > > > > these things? (Yes? No? Maybe so?) This whole female condom thing is
> > > > > very surreal for me because I happen to be gay, but a very inactive
> > > > > one at that so this is like trying to know what it is like for a fish
> > > > > to breathe water. I probably shouldnt be tinkering in this area at all
> > > > > but the company/product is simple and the 10 year growth has been so
> > > > > nice and stable.

> > > > > On a positive note: I am tending to think that even male condoms are a
> > > > > bit strange in reality but we humains are all just generally used to
> > > > > them because of necessity and custom. I guess I get this perspective
> > > > > because I have been with a variety of males and I have never met
> > > > > anyone who really 'likes' them but we all, well the smart ones, just
> > > > > kind of collectively put up with them. Perhaps as these female condoms
> > > > > are getting disbursed into the population they will, for whatever
> > > > > preferential reasons, could become a standard practice for X
> > > > > percentage of the population? Have you tried one of these
> > > > > contraptions? Has anyone out there who is reading this? Do they really
> > > > > SQUEEK?? lol.

> > > > > The other positive note is that FHCO has evolved from FC1 and now have
> > > > > the improved FC2, perhaps in their research there is the potential to
> > > > > make even better FCs?

> > > > > I see what you are saying about africa. That population boom thing
> > > > > seems to be something that happens to a lot of countries as they
> > > > > transition out of the stone age to join us in the modern world. India
> > > > > and China both used to have an obnoxious population growth but have
> > > > > since contained using their respective methods. Im holding on to hope
> > > > > that these african countries can accomplish the same. Perhaps worth
> > > > > the effort to try for it as its better for a country to control
> > > > > population w lifestyle choice rather than nature controlling it for
> > > > > them. It does not seem like its an impossible leap to get to the point
> > > > > where they are getting an education and a worthwhile existence
> > > > > (hopefully also using lots of female condoms!). Many countries have
> > > > > and are accomplishing this.

> > > > > Why did you buy?

> > > > > On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > Well female condoms have been around for a long long time. They don't
> > > > > > catch on because they are kinda crazy in operation. If it's the kind
> > > > > > I'm thinking of they have 2 big rings one is inserted and the other is
> > > > > > outside. It would make sex really lame and it's very impractical. they
> > > > > > male way is about 1000 times easier and doesn't kill that much of the
> > > > > > sexual experience. That being said no matter how much they suck these
> > > > > > guys are the only ones making them and they are getting aid money to
> > > > > > give them to 3rd world countries that will never actually use them.
> > > > > > However again they are the only ones and they basically have
> > > > > > guaranteed money from aid so as a company it sounds good but it will
> > > > > > never explode and be in every store. So they have a niche and they are
> > > > > > filling it. But don't expect your girlfriend or wife to be pulling out
> > > > > > a female condom anytime soon. It's nothing new, it's just not as good
> > > > > > as other ideas. I remember them showing videos on national geographic
> > > > > > about them trying to tell woman and men in Africa to use normal
> > > > > > condoms. They just laugh at them. Africans need to have 12 kids so
> > > > > > they can let 6 die before they hit puberty and then let the other 3
> > > > > > die from fighting. That still leave a population that is growing much
> > > > > > to fast. That is of course because of western influence. Without the
> > > > > > west child death percentage would rise and the population would
> > > > > > stabilize. With western help we can make the child death percentage
> > > > > > drop alittle make the population boom and in the end have many more
> > > > > > people die because no the land is far more over populated and now the
> > > > > > west need to send even more help since the population in Africa is no
> > > > > > were near sustainable numbers anymore. Alot of dumb people with good
> > > > > > intentions making a much bigger problem. But those people keep sending
> > > > > > money to aid and fhco gets some of that money. So I would think they
> > > > > > should be ok. But female condoms I don't think are going to be seen
> > > > > > outside of this. Since 20 years ago we learned about male and female
> > > > > > condoms in school, and I think in another 2 years condoms will still
> > > > > > be the same and male.

> > > > > > On Sep 22, 12:37 am, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Yeah I made that mistake once before where I made too high of a stake
> > > > > > > and the price went tumbling down. It put me in a bad place because as
> > > > > > > it dropped it didnt make sense to buy more because it would have made
> > > > > > > my stake unreasonable. Its recovered back up to where im at pretty
> > > > > > > much zero loss or gain and hopefully ill start to get a chance to
> > > > > > > balance out the portfolio a little. One thing that strikes me strange
> > > > > > > about this company....they have been doing this for 10 years and they
> > > > > > > still do not have a substantial stake in the public market. Why could
> > > > > > > that be? They say that they are better off without it, and they can be
> > > > > > > right as their growth from USAID and whatnot had been quite fine but
> > > > > > > why not put the things on store shelves?

> > > > > > > When I think about it I come to 2 possibly dangerous conclusions, 1 -
> > > > > > > there is something there that they are worse off if these things are
> > > > > > > selling in the market that they are going without it...like it could
> > > > > > > get the attention of Trojan and Durex?? I cant think of a better
> > > > > > > reason or why it would get their attention more than not on the store
> > > > > > > shelves. or 2- people wont but them. Maybe they get good sales from
> > > > > > > the public agencies via their argument that pulls on the heart strings
> > > > > > > but ultimately its not a desired product.

> > > > > > > What do you think about these?

> > > > > > > On Sep 21, 7:18 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > Thank you that good food for thought. I didn't think the company was
> > > > > > > > in some kind of trouble I just thought it was that sell of he was
> > > > > > > > doing that really caused it to go out of favor. However since I have a
> > > > > > > > much bigger stake in this that I should have I still worry over it.
> > > > > > > > But thanks for the input.

> > > > > > > > On Sep

> It's Mr. Market.  This stock is in a corrective mode now...time to buy
> buy buy.  The whole market is nervous right now...so down means DOWN.
> Even very strong stocks are taking a beating right now.  Will hold,
> even average down if needed, then look forward to preliminary numbers
> in mid-Nov.

> Long on FHCO.

> On Sep 24, 7:40 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:

> > yes but when a stock only trades 100 thousand shares a day and you
> > drop another hundred to sell at the lowest price it sure as hell will
> > cause a crash. Anyway I want to know why it's still going down. Only
> > sellers no buyers anymore. Will it ever stop?

> > On Sep 24, 11:27 pm, Sleddawg63 <sleddaw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Parrish is 75 years old!  Who wouldn't cash in their chips after the
> > > run this stock has had.  Probably doesn't condemn the state of this
> > > stock.

> > > On Sep 23, 2:13 pm, Stephen D <dola...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Wee. Look at her drop like a brick on Jupiter!

> > > > On Sep 22, 3:47 pm, Aagwyn <parkershigg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > I got in here pretty early and saw a gain of about 60%. Watching the
> > > > > drop from the 7.50 mark to here is soooo painful, took about 40% out
> > > > > of my profits. I originally bought because the company was growing by
> > > > > leaps and bounds every day it seemed. Every week almost there would be
> > > > > another nugget of interesting news that would send the shares higher.
> > > > > Currently, I am baffled by why it has dropped so far so fast. I don't
> > > > > really see anything as having changed so much to warrant such a
> > > > > drastic sell-off. The balance sheet is still strong, and the main
> > > > > source of their income, aid for developing countries, should be
> > > > > picking up what with the economy starting to rise again. I could sell
> > > > > now and take a profit, but I think that I'm going to hang onto this
> > > > > one for a while, or until more news comes out. :/

> > > > > On Sep 21, 11:23 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Ahhh. Yes. Very helpful perspective.

> > > > > > If its not catching on in the population, I have to wonder why/how
> > > > > > they keep on getting more and more sales growth every year. It seems
> > > > > > to me that they have a very strong argument that these things are for
> > > > > > women's rights and protection: "if aid is paying for condoms, why only
> > > > > > get MALE condoms? What about women's protection?" It makes sense that
> > > > > > if aid is going to be paying to put a stop to AIDS then they should
> > > > > > get both types availale. But then, if the people are not using the
> > > > > > females, why do the orders keep coming in?  Out of an entire bell
> > > > > > curve of a population, some of the humains out there have to prefer
> > > > > > these things? (Yes? No? Maybe so?) This whole female condom thing is
> > > > > > very surreal for me because I happen to be gay, but a very inactive
> > > > > > one at that so this is like trying to know what it is like for a fish
> > > > > > to breathe water. I probably shouldnt be tinkering in this area at all
> > > > > > but the company/product is simple and the 10 year growth has been so
> > > > > > nice and stable.

> > > > > > On a positive note: I am tending to think that even male condoms are a
> > > > > > bit strange in reality but we humains are all just generally used to
> > > > > > them because of necessity and custom. I guess I get this perspective
> > > > > > because I have been with a variety of males and I have never met
> > > > > > anyone who really 'likes' them but we all, well the smart ones, just
> > > > > > kind of collectively put up with them. Perhaps as these female condoms
> > > > > > are getting disbursed into the population they will, for whatever
> > > > > > preferential reasons, could become a standard practice for X
> > > > > > percentage of the population? Have you tried one of these
> > > > > > contraptions? Has anyone out there who is reading this? Do they really
> > > > > > SQUEEK?? lol.

> > > > > > The other positive note is that FHCO has evolved from FC1 and now have
> > > > > > the improved FC2, perhaps in their research there is the potential to
> > > > > > make even better FCs?

> > > > > > I see what you are saying about africa. That population boom thing
> > > > > > seems to be something that happens to a lot of countries as they
> > > > > > transition out of the stone age to join us in the modern world. India
> > > > > > and China both used to have an obnoxious population growth but have
> > > > > > since contained using their respective methods. Im holding on to hope
> > > > > > that these african countries can accomplish the same. Perhaps worth
> > > > > > the effort to try for it as its better for a country to control
> > > > > > population w lifestyle choice rather than nature controlling it for
> > > > > > them. It does not seem like its an impossible leap to get to the point
> > > > > > where they are getting an education and a worthwhile existence
> > > > > > (hopefully also using lots of female condoms!). Many countries have
> > > > > > and are accomplishing this.

> > > > > > Why did you buy?

> > > > > > On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > Well female condoms have been around for a long long time. They don't
> > > > > > > catch on because they are kinda crazy in operation. If it's the kind
> > > > > > > I'm thinking of they have 2 big rings one is inserted and the other is
> > > > > > > outside. It would make sex really lame and it's very impractical. they
> > > > > > > male way is about 1000 times easier and doesn't kill that much of the
> > > > > > > sexual experience. That being said no matter how much they suck these
> > > > > > > guys are the only ones making them and they are getting aid money to
> > > > > > > give them to 3rd world countries that will never actually use them.
> > > > > > > However again they are the only ones and they basically have
> > > > > > > guaranteed money from aid so as a company it sounds good but it will
> > > > > > > never explode and be in every store. So they have a niche and they are
> > > > > > > filling it. But don't expect your girlfriend or wife to be pulling out
> > > > > > > a female condom anytime soon. It's nothing new, it's just not as good
> > > > > > > as other ideas. I remember them showing videos on national geographic
> > > > > > > about them trying to tell woman and men in Africa to use normal
> > > > > > > condoms. They just laugh at them. Africans need to have 12 kids so
> > > > > > > they can let 6 die before they hit puberty and then let the other 3
> > > > > > > die from fighting. That still leave a population that is growing much
> > > > > > > to fast. That is of course because of western influence. Without the
> > > > > > > west child death percentage would rise and the population would
> > > > > > > stabilize. With western help we can make the child death percentage
> > > > > > > drop alittle make the population boom and in the end have many more
> > > > > > > people die because no the land is far more over populated and now the
> > > > > > > west need to send even more help since the population in Africa is no
> > > > > > > were near sustainable numbers anymore. Alot of dumb people with good
> > > > > > > intentions making a much bigger problem. But those people keep sending
> > > > > > > money to aid and fhco gets some of that money. So I would think they
> > > > > > > should be ok. But female condoms I don't think are going to be seen
> > > > > > > outside of this. Since 20 years ago we learned about male and female
> > > > > > > condoms in school, and I think in another 2 years condoms will still
> > > > > > > be the same and male.

> > > > > > > On Sep 22, 12:37 am, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Yeah I made that mistake once before where I made too high of a stake
> > > > > > > > and the price went tumbling down. It put me in a bad place because as
> > > > > > > > it dropped it didnt make sense to buy more because it would have made
> > > > > > > > my stake unreasonable. Its recovered back up to where im at pretty
> > > > > > > > much zero loss or gain and hopefully ill start to get a chance to
> > > > > > > > balance out the portfolio a little. One thing that strikes me strange
> > > > > > > > about this company....they have been doing this for 10 years and they
> > > > > > > > still do not have a substantial stake in the public market. Why could
> > > > > > > > that be? They say that they are better off without it, and they can be
> > > > > > > > right as their growth from USAID and whatnot had been quite fine but
> > > > > > > > why not put the things on store shelves?

> > > > > > > > When I think about it I come to 2 possibly dangerous conclusions, 1 -
> > > > > > > > there is something there that they are worse off if these things are
> > > > > > > > selling in the market that they are going without it...like it could
> > > > > > > > get the attention of Trojan and Durex?? I cant think of a better
> > > > > > > > reason or why it would get their attention more than not on the store
> > > > > > > > shelves. or 2- people wont but them. Maybe they get good sales from
> > > > > > > > the public agencies via their argument that pulls on the heart strings
> > > > > > > > but ultimately its not a desired product.

> > > > > > > > What do you think about these?

> > > > > > > > On Sep 21, 7:18 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham

> I agree with Sleddawg63, this is a greate company with a good groth,
> i've been average down and I'm holding for long. GLTA

> On Sep 25, 7:23 am, Sleddawg63 <sleddaw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It's Mr. Market.  This stock is in a corrective mode now...time to buy
> > buy buy.  The whole market is nervous right now...so down means DOWN.
> > Even very strong stocks are taking a beating right now.  Will hold,
> > even average down if needed, then look forward to preliminary numbers
> > in mid-Nov.

> > Long on FHCO.

> > On Sep 24, 7:40 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:

> > > yes but when a stock only trades 100 thousand shares a day and you
> > > drop another hundred to sell at the lowest price it sure as hell will
> > > cause a crash. Anyway I want to know why it's still going down. Only
> > > sellers no buyers anymore. Will it ever stop?

> > > On Sep 24, 11:27 pm, Sleddawg63 <sleddaw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Parrish is 75 years old!  Who wouldn't cash in their chips after the
> > > > run this stock has had.  Probably doesn't condemn the state of this
> > > > stock.

> > > > On Sep 23, 2:13 pm, Stephen D <dola...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Wee. Look at her drop like a brick on Jupiter!

> > > > > On Sep 22, 3:47 pm, Aagwyn <parkershigg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > I got in here pretty early and saw a gain of about 60%. Watching the
> > > > > > drop from the 7.50 mark to here is soooo painful, took about 40% out
> > > > > > of my profits. I originally bought because the company was growing by
> > > > > > leaps and bounds every day it seemed. Every week almost there would be
> > > > > > another nugget of interesting news that would send the shares higher.
> > > > > > Currently, I am baffled by why it has dropped so far so fast. I don't
> > > > > > really see anything as having changed so much to warrant such a
> > > > > > drastic sell-off. The balance sheet is still strong, and the main
> > > > > > source of their income, aid for developing countries, should be
> > > > > > picking up what with the economy starting to rise again. I could sell
> > > > > > now and take a profit, but I think that I'm going to hang onto this
> > > > > > one for a while, or until more news comes out. :/

> > > > > > On Sep 21, 11:23 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Ahhh. Yes. Very helpful perspective.

> > > > > > > If its not catching on in the population, I have to wonder why/how
> > > > > > > they keep on getting more and more sales growth every year. It seems
> > > > > > > to me that they have a very strong argument that these things are for
> > > > > > > women's rights and protection: "if aid is paying for condoms, why only
> > > > > > > get MALE condoms? What about women's protection?" It makes sense that
> > > > > > > if aid is going to be paying to put a stop to AIDS then they should
> > > > > > > get both types availale. But then, if the people are not using the
> > > > > > > females, why do the orders keep coming in?  Out of an entire bell
> > > > > > > curve of a population, some of the humains out there have to prefer
> > > > > > > these things? (Yes? No? Maybe so?) This whole female condom thing is
> > > > > > > very surreal for me because I happen to be gay, but a very inactive
> > > > > > > one at that so this is like trying to know what it is like for a fish
> > > > > > > to breathe water. I probably shouldnt be tinkering in this area at all
> > > > > > > but the company/product is simple and the 10 year growth has been so
> > > > > > > nice and stable.

> > > > > > > On a positive note: I am tending to think that even male condoms are a
> > > > > > > bit strange in reality but we humains are all just generally used to
> > > > > > > them because of necessity and custom. I guess I get this perspective
> > > > > > > because I have been with a variety of males and I have never met
> > > > > > > anyone who really 'likes' them but we all, well the smart ones, just
> > > > > > > kind of collectively put up with them. Perhaps as these female condoms
> > > > > > > are getting disbursed into the population they will, for whatever
> > > > > > > preferential reasons, could become a standard practice for X
> > > > > > > percentage of the population? Have you tried one of these
> > > > > > > contraptions? Has anyone out there who is reading this? Do they really
> > > > > > > SQUEEK?? lol.

> > > > > > > The other positive note is that FHCO has evolved from FC1 and now have
> > > > > > > the improved FC2, perhaps in their research there is the potential to
> > > > > > > make even better FCs?

> > > > > > > I see what you are saying about africa. That population boom thing
> > > > > > > seems to be something that happens to a lot of countries as they
> > > > > > > transition out of the stone age to join us in the modern world. India
> > > > > > > and China both used to have an obnoxious population growth but have
> > > > > > > since contained using their respective methods. Im holding on to hope
> > > > > > > that these african countries can accomplish the same. Perhaps worth
> > > > > > > the effort to try for it as its better for a country to control
> > > > > > > population w lifestyle choice rather than nature controlling it for
> > > > > > > them. It does not seem like its an impossible leap to get to the point
> > > > > > > where they are getting an education and a worthwhile existence
> > > > > > > (hopefully also using lots of female condoms!). Many countries have
> > > > > > > and are accomplishing this.

> > > > > > > Why did you buy?

> > > > > > > On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > Well female condoms have been around for a long long time. They don't
> > > > > > > > catch on because they are kinda crazy in operation. If it's the kind
> > > > > > > > I'm thinking of they have 2 big rings one is inserted and the other is
> > > > > > > > outside. It would make sex really lame and it's very impractical. they
> > > > > > > > male way is about 1000 times easier and doesn't kill that much of the
> > > > > > > > sexual experience. That being said no matter how much they suck these
> > > > > > > > guys are the only ones making them and they are getting aid money to
> > > > > > > > give them to 3rd world countries that will never actually use them.
> > > > > > > > However again they are the only ones and they basically have
> > > > > > > > guaranteed money from aid so as a company it sounds good but it will
> > > > > > > > never explode and be in every store. So they have a niche and they are
> > > > > > > > filling it. But don't expect your girlfriend or wife to be pulling out
> > > > > > > > a female condom anytime soon. It's nothing new, it's just not as good
> > > > > > > > as other ideas. I remember them showing videos on national geographic
> > > > > > > > about them trying to tell woman and men in Africa to use normal
> > > > > > > > condoms. They just laugh at them. Africans need to have 12 kids so
> > > > > > > > they can let 6 die before they hit puberty and then let the other 3
> > > > > > > > die from fighting. That still leave a population that is growing much
> > > > > > > > to fast. That is of course because of western influence. Without the
> > > > > > > > west child death percentage would rise and the population would
> > > > > > > > stabilize. With western help we can make the child death percentage
> > > > > > > > drop alittle make the population boom and in the end have many more
> > > > > > > > people die because no the land is far more over populated and now the
> > > > > > > > west need to send even more help since the population in Africa is no
> > > > > > > > were near sustainable numbers anymore. Alot of dumb people with good
> > > > > > > > intentions making a much bigger problem. But those people keep sending
> > > > > > > > money to aid and fhco gets some of that money. So I would think they
> > > > > > > > should be ok. But female condoms I don't think are going to be seen
> > > > > > > > outside of this. Since 20 years ago we learned about male and female
> > > > > > > > condoms in school, and I think in another 2 years condoms will still
> > > > > > > > be the same and male.

> > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 12:37 am, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Yeah I made that mistake once before where I made too high of a stake
> > > > > > > > > and the price went tumbling down. It put me in a bad place because as
> > > > > > > > > it dropped it didnt make sense to buy more because it would have made
> > > > > > > > > my stake unreasonable. Its recovered back up to where im at pretty
> > > > > > > > > much zero loss or gain and hopefully ill start to get a chance to
> > > > > > > > > balance out the portfolio a little. One thing that strikes me strange
> > > > > > > > > about this company....they have been doing this for 10 years and they
> > > > > > > > > still do not have a substantial stake in the public market. Why could
> > > > > > > > > that be? They say that they are better off without it, and they can be
> > > > > > > > > right as their growth from USAID and whatnot had been quite fine but
> > > > > > > > > why not put the things on store shelves?

> > > > > > > > > When I think about it I come to 2 possibly dangerous conclusions, 1 -
> > > > > > > > > there is something there that they are worse off if these things are
> > > > > > > > > selling in the market that they are going without it...like it could
> > > > > > > > > get the attention of Trojan and Durex?? I cant think of a better
> > > > > > > > > reason or why it would get their

> Im kind of hoping that it will drop below 4 to buy some more.

> On Sep 25, 9:30 am, leo <tupapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I agree with Sleddawg63, this is a greate company with a good groth,
> > i've been average down and I'm holding for long. GLTA

> > On Sep 25, 7:23 am, Sleddawg63 <sleddaw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > It's Mr. Market.  This stock is in a corrective mode now...time to buy
> > > buy buy.  The whole market is nervous right now...so down means DOWN.
> > > Even very strong stocks are taking a beating right now.  Will hold,
> > > even average down if needed, then look forward to preliminary numbers
> > > in mid-Nov.

> > > Long on FHCO.

> > > On Sep 24, 7:40 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:

> > > > yes but when a stock only trades 100 thousand shares a day and you
> > > > drop another hundred to sell at the lowest price it sure as hell will
> > > > cause a crash. Anyway I want to know why it's still going down. Only
> > > > sellers no buyers anymore. Will it ever stop?

> > > > On Sep 24, 11:27 pm, Sleddawg63 <sleddaw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Parrish is 75 years old!  Who wouldn't cash in their chips after the
> > > > > run this stock has had.  Probably doesn't condemn the state of this
> > > > > stock.

> > > > > On Sep 23, 2:13 pm, Stephen D <dola...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Wee. Look at her drop like a brick on Jupiter!

> > > > > > On Sep 22, 3:47 pm, Aagwyn <parkershigg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > I got in here pretty early and saw a gain of about 60%. Watching the
> > > > > > > drop from the 7.50 mark to here is soooo painful, took about 40% out
> > > > > > > of my profits. I originally bought because the company was growing by
> > > > > > > leaps and bounds every day it seemed. Every week almost there would be
> > > > > > > another nugget of interesting news that would send the shares higher.
> > > > > > > Currently, I am baffled by why it has dropped so far so fast. I don't
> > > > > > > really see anything as having changed so much to warrant such a
> > > > > > > drastic sell-off. The balance sheet is still strong, and the main
> > > > > > > source of their income, aid for developing countries, should be
> > > > > > > picking up what with the economy starting to rise again. I could sell
> > > > > > > now and take a profit, but I think that I'm going to hang onto this
> > > > > > > one for a while, or until more news comes out. :/

> > > > > > > On Sep 21, 11:23 pm, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Ahhh. Yes. Very helpful perspective.

> > > > > > > > If its not catching on in the population, I have to wonder why/how
> > > > > > > > they keep on getting more and more sales growth every year. It seems
> > > > > > > > to me that they have a very strong argument that these things are for
> > > > > > > > women's rights and protection: "if aid is paying for condoms, why only
> > > > > > > > get MALE condoms? What about women's protection?" It makes sense that
> > > > > > > > if aid is going to be paying to put a stop to AIDS then they should
> > > > > > > > get both types availale. But then, if the people are not using the
> > > > > > > > females, why do the orders keep coming in?  Out of an entire bell
> > > > > > > > curve of a population, some of the humains out there have to prefer
> > > > > > > > these things? (Yes? No? Maybe so?) This whole female condom thing is
> > > > > > > > very surreal for me because I happen to be gay, but a very inactive
> > > > > > > > one at that so this is like trying to know what it is like for a fish
> > > > > > > > to breathe water. I probably shouldnt be tinkering in this area at all
> > > > > > > > but the company/product is simple and the 10 year growth has been so
> > > > > > > > nice and stable.

> > > > > > > > On a positive note: I am tending to think that even male condoms are a
> > > > > > > > bit strange in reality but we humains are all just generally used to
> > > > > > > > them because of necessity and custom. I guess I get this perspective
> > > > > > > > because I have been with a variety of males and I have never met
> > > > > > > > anyone who really 'likes' them but we all, well the smart ones, just
> > > > > > > > kind of collectively put up with them. Perhaps as these female condoms
> > > > > > > > are getting disbursed into the population they will, for whatever
> > > > > > > > preferential reasons, could become a standard practice for X
> > > > > > > > percentage of the population? Have you tried one of these
> > > > > > > > contraptions? Has anyone out there who is reading this? Do they really
> > > > > > > > SQUEEK?? lol.

> > > > > > > > The other positive note is that FHCO has evolved from FC1 and now have
> > > > > > > > the improved FC2, perhaps in their research there is the potential to
> > > > > > > > make even better FCs?

> > > > > > > > I see what you are saying about africa. That population boom thing
> > > > > > > > seems to be something that happens to a lot of countries as they
> > > > > > > > transition out of the stone age to join us in the modern world. India
> > > > > > > > and China both used to have an obnoxious population growth but have
> > > > > > > > since contained using their respective methods. Im holding on to hope
> > > > > > > > that these african countries can accomplish the same. Perhaps worth
> > > > > > > > the effort to try for it as its better for a country to control
> > > > > > > > population w lifestyle choice rather than nature controlling it for
> > > > > > > > them. It does not seem like its an impossible leap to get to the point
> > > > > > > > where they are getting an education and a worthwhile existence
> > > > > > > > (hopefully also using lots of female condoms!). Many countries have
> > > > > > > > and are accomplishing this.

> > > > > > > > Why did you buy?

> > > > > > > > On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, Jeremiah Cheatham <jeremiah6...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Well female condoms have been around for a long long time. They don't
> > > > > > > > > catch on because they are kinda crazy in operation. If it's the kind
> > > > > > > > > I'm thinking of they have 2 big rings one is inserted and the other is
> > > > > > > > > outside. It would make sex really lame and it's very impractical. they
> > > > > > > > > male way is about 1000 times easier and doesn't kill that much of the
> > > > > > > > > sexual experience. That being said no matter how much they suck these
> > > > > > > > > guys are the only ones making them and they are getting aid money to
> > > > > > > > > give them to 3rd world countries that will never actually use them.
> > > > > > > > > However again they are the only ones and they basically have
> > > > > > > > > guaranteed money from aid so as a company it sounds good but it will
> > > > > > > > > never explode and be in every store. So they have a niche and they are
> > > > > > > > > filling it. But don't expect your girlfriend or wife to be pulling out
> > > > > > > > > a female condom anytime soon. It's nothing new, it's just not as good
> > > > > > > > > as other ideas. I remember them showing videos on national geographic
> > > > > > > > > about them trying to tell woman and men in Africa to use normal
> > > > > > > > > condoms. They just laugh at them. Africans need to have 12 kids so
> > > > > > > > > they can let 6 die before they hit puberty and then let the other 3
> > > > > > > > > die from fighting. That still leave a population that is growing much
> > > > > > > > > to fast. That is of course because of western influence. Without the
> > > > > > > > > west child death percentage would rise and the population would
> > > > > > > > > stabilize. With western help we can make the child death percentage
> > > > > > > > > drop alittle make the population boom and in the end have many more
> > > > > > > > > people die because no the land is far more over populated and now the
> > > > > > > > > west need to send even more help since the population in Africa is no
> > > > > > > > > were near sustainable numbers anymore. Alot of dumb people with good
> > > > > > > > > intentions making a much bigger problem. But those people keep sending
> > > > > > > > > money to aid and fhco gets some of that money. So I would think they
> > > > > > > > > should be ok. But female condoms I don't think are going to be seen
> > > > > > > > > outside of this. Since 20 years ago we learned about male and female
> > > > > > > > > condoms in school, and I think in another 2 years condoms will still
> > > > > > > > > be the same and male.

> > > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 12:37 am, ualrark <ualr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > Yeah I made that mistake once before where I made too high of a stake
> > > > > > > > > > and the price went tumbling down. It put me in a bad place because as
> > > > > > > > > > it dropped it didnt make sense to buy more because it would have made
> > > > > > > > > > my stake unreasonable. Its recovered back up to where im at pretty
> > > > > > > > > > much zero loss or gain and hopefully ill start to get a chance to
> > > > > > > > > > balance out the portfolio a little. One thing that strikes me strange
> > > > > > > > > > about this company....they have been doing this for 10 years and they
> > > > > > > > > > still do not have a substantial stake in the public market. Why could
> > > > > > > > > > that be? They say that they are better off without it, and they can be
> > > > > > > > > > right as their growth from USAID and whatnot had been quite fine but
> > > > > > > > > > why not put the things on store shelves?

> > > > > > > > > > When I