Hope everyone has at least a little of AKAO ... it's been getting a lot of attention. Upgraded today and a nearly 20% stake by investment group. Worth tucking it away, too, imo.
Read something worthwhile instead of the same old doom and gloom from the Stooges!
Did you notice at the open, there were very FEW shares up for sale until the market rattled a few people who let go. Down on light volume and then significant buying came in. Close to half a million in first 90 minutes on NO news and weak market. Can't be all based on event today, can it?
Yahoo's message board format won't allow links anymore. Perhaps it's best just for people to google it.
Seems strange, doesn't it? It's been glued there for days in a weak market. IF shorts wanted to, they could drop the price, I would think. This whole thing feels like it just might blow up in "you know who's" face!
Are you serious? That whole FDA process/drama that has been ongoing for several years now was a management debacle for shareholders. The ex-CEO constantly sent mixed signals to DMD patients/parents, FDA and shareholders ... oh, and Wall Street. Take a look at THEIR chart! Stop with the mgmt. b.s. already!
What was CPXX's "book value" 6 months ago? Biotech is very unpredictable ... out of favor one minute, scooped up and acquired the next! Place your bets!!
I think we may just be misunderstanding one another here. Might just be a failure to communicate. I understand, without dilution or splits, if you invest X and 13 years later your shares are at the same price, your investment has been stagnant and remains the same. However, I'm pretty sure over the past 13 years, CERS has raised cash through offerings and has, thereby, diluted the original investment. 1000 shares in a company with X number of shares isn't worth as much if that same company has offered 20% more shares to the market. IF the market perceives the offering as positive, perhaps share price wouldn't fall and adjust for that 20% dilution, but most times it will. Personally, I have no idea at this time whether or not CERS # of outstanding shares has changed in that time frame. I'm guessing it has. So to focus on share price as opposed to market value doesn't make sense. At any rate, this is what I'm getting at:
"Why is a stock that cost $50 less than another stock priced at $10?
This question opens a point that often trips up beginning investors: The per-share price of a stock is thought to convey some sense of value relative to other stocks. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
In fact, except for its use in some calculations, the per-share price is virtually meaningless to investors doing fundamental analysis. If you follow the technical analysis route to stock selection, it’s a different story, but for now let’s stick with fundamental analysis.
The reason we aren’t concerned with per-share price is that it is always changing and, since each company has a different number of outstanding shares, it doesn’t give us a clue to the value of the company. For that number, we need the market capitalization or market cap number."
We can agree to disagree without implying someone isn't qualified to invest in the market when you know nothing of that person's background. Just sayin' ...
How can you say "dilution only affects the market cap and not what your shares are worth"? Market cap divided by total # of shares gives you the share PRICE. If your shares were $10 and they diluted by issuing 20% more shares, your market cap remains the same but, theoretically, your shares, all things being equal, would probably trade at $8; unless the market interpreted the dilution in a very positive light similarly to CPXX's $9.50 offering and because of successful P3 results never came close to retracing to the offering price despite dilution.
Well, if you pay X for a share at a point in time and the company either doesn't perform up to expectations, dilutes, fails goals, and your investment either declines or stagnates, then it is time to reassess that investment. But, after all of the recent milestones and accomplishments, it makes NO sense whatsoever to look in the rearview mirror at what CERS has done historically. This "ain't your father's CERS"!! I, for one, would never remain invested in something I did not believe in ... there are lots of biotech plays out there.
Same market cap or same price per share? Big difference. I'm sure there has been dilution since then, so it's not essentially the same price. Right or wrong?
It's not true and is irrelevant! Dennis Gartman is just another Jim Cramer in commodities clothing.
Not the share price that is important. Our market cap right now is approx. $600M ... pretty solid valuation. Prior to recent developments and milestones, that is about right but about to get "righter"! Market might be starting to look ahead for CERS and that's a good thing.