I'd be interested in any explanation on how one assesses the aptness of the valuation of a company which has published as little financial information as STVF, has no revenue, etc. The usual financial markers simply don't exist.
Now, I do happen to own the stock, but I'll admit that my ownership is based on speculation about the product in general, not solid financial fact.
For those who feel confident in speaking about the fair value of the company, please explain your basis. FWIW, "the stock is near an 12 month low" says nothing whatsoever about whether the stock is misvalued at that level.
"I agree." In due time, stvf's share price will be up there equel or better than all the other sweatner's that are now on the market. In addition; investors will enjoy having a stock that the medical industry and the entire world will appreciate having on the list. This low price will not last for long, because the world needs help with eliminating the health problems from too much real sugar intake.
You've both remade my point--prices are meaningless in the absence of financial data. Is a $2 stock a better buy than a $20 stock. Not necessarily. Again, I own STVF, but I am willing to admit that it is the least rational stock pick I have ever made. There is no basis whatsoever to say that the price is high, low or otherwise.
Flitzer, I do agree that it IS tough to properly ascertain valuation when a company is so new---traditional financial markers are tough to gauge with a company like STVF. This is a speculative company and traditional valuations and methodology are tougher to observe. However, with that said, I think this company is entering the right business. Stevia is a tried and true product--a product which is steadily growing and has massive global appeal. And at current PPS, you really don't have much to lose to invest in a company tapping into this lucrative and blossoming industry.