You are seriously annoying.
"Ok genius, if this company is so 'great', why was it on the verge of falling beneath a $1?"
-Synavive, look it up.
If your so-called institutional investors are able to ignore grade school preconceptions, why are they not buying?
- You already answered this with your incessant nagging about below $1. Now that we are above 5$ they probably are (or will), we will find out how much at the end of the quarter.
The jump from $0.75 was due to the FDA designation of Z getting an orphan drug status. Any drug gets an orphan status if the disease it is trying to treat affects less than 200,000 ppl. It doesn't mean it's safe; it doesn't mean it is efficacious.
- Yes, AND? The price went up because if phase 2 is successful, the ODD will increase the chances of a successful phase 3 and better market conditions for the drug if approved.
Please do some dd or take your ranting elsewhere.
So many people that are gonna shoot themselves in the foot for this kind of shortsighted thinking!
Scistats wrote. "It is legal insider trading by proxy. They knew the exact date and time of the reverse split, and I am sure that they acted on this information."
That IS the definition of insider trading. What is your argument for your proposed "proxy" legality of your claims?
From the SEC:
(Analytically, the obligation [not to engage in insider trading] rests on two principal elements: first, the existence of a relationship giving access, directly or indirectly, to information intended to be available only for a corporate purpose and not for the personal benefit of anyone, and second, the inherent unfairness involved where a party takes advantage of such information knowing it is unavailable to those with whom he is dealing. In considering these elements under the broad language of the anti-fraud provisions we are not to be circumscribed by fine distinctions and rigid classifications. Thus, it is our task here to identify those persons who are in a special relationship with a company and privy to its internal affairs, and thereby suffer correlative duties in trading in its securities. Intimacy demands restraint lest the uninformed be exploited.24
Based on this reasoning, the Commission held that a broker who traded while in possession of nonpublic information he received from a company director violated Rule 10b-5. The Commission adopted the "disclose or abstain rule": insiders, and those who would come to be known as "temporary" or "constructive" insiders, who possess material nonpublic information, must disclose it before trading or abstain from trading until the information is publicly disseminated).
Your claims about LPC being privy to insider knowledge from ZLCS mgmt seems to be in direct contradiction to law. Their level of DD is much better than the average investor on this board and therefore, their anticipation of events is much more accurate. Are they manipulating the stock price? Yes. Are they doing it with inside info. Most probably not.
This post is saturated with defensive arguments. It's fine to be upset, the RS sucked, but your analysis is taking this WAY too far imo. Your point about short interest manipulation is valid, but your timing doesn't make sense. Why would shorts take up a position now before the trial results are released? If results are good, it would be #$%$ to short, if results are bad....we have worse things to worry about. With the potential size of the market and ODD, good results mean returns in the 100%%%%s. So you basically discarded amazing science and a proven method of action based on a knee jerk reaction to mgmt not being able to increase the stock price over the last year? That sounds like a mix of half thoughts and betrayal anxiety.
With the HUGE volume today and the up and down action, could part of this be explained by ZLCS selling to LPC, which would have offset accumulation by retail and potentially institutions? If this is the case, next week could be better with the brakes off and data just around the corner. Only suicidal shorts would start a position this close to data release, which if positive (proven method of action, fixed bioavailability issues = more than a fighting chance) would skyrocket the pps. Thoughts?