HoHum,

It's not VATE's "riskiness" that I was objecting to, but something else, namely, my unwillingness to try to manage its risks.

As I've said elsewhere, I buy across the yield-curve and up and down the FI credit-spectrum. That means I'm buying spec-grade debt (aka, junk bonds), a lot of them. However, when I'm buying those bonds, I'm typically buying "fallen angels", i.e., the debt of companies with fairly decent balance sheets that the market is currently trashing, but whose prospects for recovery are likely enough that I'm willing to take a position.

Some of those bets worked out fabulously. E.g., buy XRX's 8's of '27 at 34 and have the bond trade near par a couple years later. You've doubled your money on the principal, and --meanwhile-- clip a 25%/year coupon. Same-same with Internet Cap's bonds, another one on which I achieved a near 100% YTM. OTOH, there have been bets on which I lost everything. No BK workout. No nothing. However, as long as gains exceed losses by a decent enough margin, the gig is doable.

You presented VATE a 'microcap'. But that's an irrelevant fact. What is relevant is that the market --in her infinite wisdom-- is pricing it as a 'penny stock'. Therefore, VATE needs to be benchmarked against its peers, the couple thousand other penny stocks there are, all of which can offer fabulous gains, as well as spectacular losses. So, this question has to be asked:

Ques: "Who makes consistent money in penny stocks?"
ANS: "Them who make penny stocks their specialty and who do the work that investing in that asset class requires."

I've dabbled in the pennies, as have we all. But I've already got more iron in the fires than would permit me to add another. So VATE gets discarded for being the distraction it would be for me, rather than an opportunity.

Charlie