The stock is down because of 3 things: First a sell-off in defense stocks due to Pakistan/India peace accord( which is ridulous and irrelevant to defense budget buildout), second, market risk and profit taking in a sector that has been strong, and finally, the overhead created by the shelf offering( as if the secondary was new news). The registration statement was filed in March I believe.....
This is the BEST and Ultimate pure play in the defense sector...Long 20,000 shares today and buying all the way down to 52 or on a 3 box reveral at 58.
This stock DEFINITELY goes to new highs and 100 range over the next 6 months...
Talking up my position...but defense is the Next leading group including Lmt,Rtn,Noc,Caci, and Gd.
I'm not sure of the msg numbers but over on the INVN board, there have been a number of msgs posted saying that the LLL machines do not work, and are not wanted. There is a quote for an MSNBC June 10th article dragging up ancient history dirty laundry against LLL equipment, and very complimentary towards the INVN equipment. Its a news item. Just because something is in the news doesn't mean they got the facts right, or managed to find their way to the correct conclusions. This article is a very visible attack and the vast majority of people reading it will take its contents as gospel and probably assume that if there are only 2 companies certified, that the revenues are significant to both. This would be a bad mistake. No one who falls into that category cares that its only rumored to be 2% or so of LLL revenue. There is also the repeated newbie mistake of confusing Level 3 and LLL. Yes well. That might account for the actions of small fry investors, but not those of the bigger players. HIET got its 5 minutes of fame - good for it. I wonder if they mentioned the online vitamin distribution business? INVN machines are heavy because of the large amounts of lead shielding to stop X-rays from damaging anyone nearby. When you have fast neutrons interacting with materials this tends to result in radiation too. I wonder why HIET don't need to worry about this? Maybe they never expect to get as far as building fieldable equipment? A prototype does not a product make. Maybe they really do have something - if so, why didn't they get follow up funding from the same govt agency that funded the original work?
Finally, INVN got decimated when its secondary was done and hopes of maybe 500 orders for the year, suddenly became a cut from expectations of�2200 to 1100. I believe what ensued is known as a bear attack. To my mind, nothing fundamentally had changed, except of course, my profits.
LLL seems to be suffering from overall market malaise, fud about the secondary, and the rumor mill. The LLL board used to be excellent. Lot of tripe posted here recently. Lots of�idiots asking questions they'd get the answers to if they bothered to read more than the last few postings before adding to the drivel.
Well good luck except to those who participate in short attacks or use misinformation to knock prices around.
You missed one point - The airport security crew are lobbying hard to stop the installation of security devices in airports. They say that the Dec deadline is too soon, the devices scheduled for installation will become obsolete soon after installation and the positioning of the devices will cause an even greater security problem because there would be a large number of people gathered around them and a bomb detonated in that area would be devastating. So, if the Bush administration decides to rethink this one, its lost revenue for lll.
The devices are expensive but I don't think all the points you made were valid. Aren't these devices to be used on checked baggage rather than on carry on items? Creation of a 'greater security problem' due to people being gathered around the machine seems moot.
The bigger problem for checking all the 'checked' bags is likely more of a logistics problem. Getting all those bags from multiple carriers through one machine in a terminal and then redistributed to go to the correct gate for loading on the planes is a tough thing to do IMO.
At DFW near here, there are 4 terminals with about 36 gates per terminal, and a lot of distance between gate 1 and gate 36.
I am not an expert on airport operations, but I believe sending all the bags through one or two machines per terminal requires a significantly more indirect and complex path from the 'check in' location to the airplane's baggage compartment than what they do now.
If they really tried to implement this I bet you'd need to arrive more than 2 hours ahead of departure. Maybe you'd need to send your bags to the airport the day before. I hope that second estimate is an extreme exaggeration. But maybe it is not so far from reality.