Oh, for Pete's sake, grow up already. Ken Berlin has no control over the daily manipulations the hedge funds can pull on a small cap stock. What is wrong with you people?
"for no specific reason"? Are you really that naive? Can't anyone else on this message board recognize the corrupt, Wall Street mother - &^%&^% playing with a low float easy target? Get a life already. It's nothing more than the usual hedge fund manipulations.
Or are you all paid by the hedge funds to deflect the obvious explanation?
I don't think the geopolitical problems in the Middle East are at work here. CGEN is also an Israeli biotech company and is up over 5% today.
"In any event" -- sorry for any confusion caused by the spelling error. My eyes ain't what they used to be, and it's getting harder to catch those typos. Oh well, hope all have a good day. I'm heading off to work.
az, I agree in principle with your call for clarification, but in reality I'm not sure how effective even a detailed report would be at this point in the market cycle. Also, the deal might include certain restrictions on public disclosure of payments (I'm just guessing here). In any even, like you, I certainly sense the bears are charging once again in this direction. But who can ever tell what will cause them to stop dead in their tracks and make a U-turn?
A quick glance at the business news reveals a rising number of market analysts who are calling for a correction, and that trend creates additional selling pressure on small cap stocks like CGEN. This morning, Jeff Saut of Raymond James joined that list telling clients to "raise cash" by selling the "non-performing stocks in their portfolios." Unfortunately, even with yesterday's positive news, for the last half-year this stock falls into that category, Raymond James is very well respected in the east, and a call like Saut's will no doubt affect the decisions of money managers, and CGEN is a likely target for liquidation. Such are the trials and tribulations of investing in new biotechnology companies. The drop in price says nothing about the science, the management, or the potential for future profits of an individual company. It is all about the fear of a larger market drop. On Wall Street, the attention is on the near term, and traders who are evaluated by quarterly performance records cannot wait for the slow, deliberate pace of scientific discoveries.
Yes, Happy Birthday! I certainly agree that there would have been more to celebrate if we had seen a more positive response to today's news. But I'm not sure if the drop is because of the "half-empty" interpretation of the news, or just a general market sell-off that is affecting the majority of the small cap sector, regardless of good news. And sometimes the news is slow to sift through the institutional buyers, or they are waiting for the biotech analysts to update their reports on the company. In other words, I'm not sure that today's lower share price is the final word on today's announcement, and we might ( and I emphasize the word "might") see a more favorable response once the fear-induced selling subsides.
Ha, yes, true. Wall Street doesn't need to see "product," as long as they see money flowing from the larger firms to the smaller ones in deals.
I disagree a bit with your assessment, azizabortnick. I do not think there is any doubt about the science and its ability to lead to important products. Rather, the problem is more systemic, by which I mean the investment community's demands for expeditious corporate profits. American capitalism, especially the Wall Street financial world variety, has no tolerance for deliberately paced scientific research. The investment community wants results, with its "get this to me by yesterday" mentality, and ignores the truism that the best results can be achieved only with precise, thorough, and on-going assessment and revision. Unfortunately, Wall Street, being so focused on profits alone, represents and magnifies the worst aspects of human greed and impatience. Indeed, Corporate America and scientific research are seldom compatible; they make strange bedfellows. Often I feel my investments in biotechnology firms go against the profit-obsessed culture that we must endure and work with in order to achieve any success at all. I'll bet my bottom dollar that Wall Street does not have any doubts about Compugen's eventual achievements; rather, it simply has no patience with the time necessary to reach them. So, the techno wizards who rule Wall Street have devised other ways to make their profits out of the stocks of such small cap companies while they wait for real profits to emerge. Of course, their manipulations create all kinds of distortions in the value of the company, and the resulting fluctuations in stock price create anxiety for the small, independent investors. Time, as you write, is the only remaining impediment to a higher stock price, and time, as the Rolling Stones reminded us, is on our side. The readiness is all.
steve amd sbh, I seldom place my professional hat on while reading (or writing) a message board. And then only if the poster is being nasty. I do, however. call out professional writers who are paid for their work and should have taken the time to avoid at least some of the more basic errors in structure and style. Mr. Williams could have asked two or three other readers to help him catch any lapses in logic and awkward sentences. It's what good writers do.
No one writes perfectly; we all make linguistic errors, and thank goodness our friends let them slip by in casual circumstances. But professional writing calls for higher standards, and professional writers must be held accountable for failing to communicate clearly and correctly. It's their job! Why should I trust Mr. Williams as a stock analyst if he cannot write in a manner that shows his global intelligence, his attention to details, and his ability to express himself precisely?
I agree with all you wrote. We have potential "danger" in the form of acceptance of the products, but if those tests indeed identify diseases more accurately than previous methods, they will become indispensable to the diagnosis process.
Steven, Thanks for your questions. They have generated some helpful responses from our crew. If you were worried about being pedantic, I'll set your mind at ease by showing you real pedantry:
If Sean Williams had handed this brief essay to me as an assignment, I would have sent him back for serious revisions. The main reason is that he does not progress logically from his supporting evidence to his conclusion. In broadest terms, his data contradicts his thesis. He presents completely positive examples, using near-hyperbolic language, and then strives to derive a negative conclusion from those positives. Not logically consistent on the macro-level structure.
Furthermore, his concluding sentences, the ones that offer the thesis that dismisses his data, are gibberish. The penultimate sentence reads as follows (the errors in grammar and punctuation, the oxymoron, the unnecessary repetition, and the dangling modifier are his):
"Still, as a wholly clinical company with much of its research still very early stage I find placing a somewhat accurate valuation on Compugen difficult."
This sentence is an egregious example of poor writing. First, his beginning modifying phrase designates himself ("I") as the "wholly clinical company..." and not Compugen. Second, he apparently knows women who are "somewhat" pregnant. Third, he STILL needs to ensure that we STILL see his difficulty evaluating the company.
Even worse,his last sentence is utter tautological nonsense, offering generalized advice that pertains to nothing and everything. If Mr. Williams were my student, I would inform him that one's "safest bet" is always to "remain on the sidelines." Of course staying on the sidelines is the "safest bet": one avoids risk entirely that way, no matter what the "bet." Lastly, Mr. Williams' thesis, besides contradicting his evidence, does not offer advice to an audience of investors in a start up biotech company. If "we" demanded "something tangible," "we" would have invested in AMGN.
Your concerns are legitimate, based on the amount of information the public has on this company. I have checked for insider holdings and came up "empty" as well. I am not sure why that is the case, although it might have something to do with the company being a foreign entity, and the regulations governing ownership or reporting ownership are different. I'm just shooting in the dark here, We would need a good financial adviser with international legal training to comment.
I will take the opposite stance from you, however, and suggest that now is not the time to sell. I'm basing this call on the premise that the company has been slowly making progress in the testing market, both in sales of existing products and research/discovery of new ones. The announcement last week that we are working with the Moffitt Cancer Center has far reaching implications that many investors may not realize. Moffitt is one of the most well respected treatment centers in the country, This collaboration signals to the medical community that ROSG provides a meaningful contribution to the diagnosis of diseases. I may be completely wrong, but I interpreted that announcement as a "watershed" of sorts. It is not a "deal" that Wall Street would immediately wake up to, but one that would probably attract the attention of oncologists and pathologists across the country. The oncologists and pathologists are the primary clients of ROSG, however, and if they can be convinced of the value of this company's tests, then sales will improve, and then Wall Street will eventually take notice.
All this is just my very uninformed surmise, of course, but it is why I am not selling my shares. In fact, I added to my position at the end of trading on Monday.
Without a doubt. The announcement this morning shows the company is succeeding in reaching its goals. And as we all know, success breeds success.
SBH, funny. I never heard that contemporary variation, and it aptly describes much of the nonsense that I quickly click away. We certainly have our "poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage -- and then is heard no more" on this board.
As for deals, let's hope we will hear about them long before "the last syllable of recorded time."
The article presents a clear and well-supported analysis of the company's financial state, and the obstacles for any strong movement upward of the stock price in the coming months. Anyone looking to invest here would do well to read that article first as part of one's due diligence.
Yes, thanks for the information. Just another indication of the brain power and expertise working on Compugen's science, and the connections being formed over time. The article indicates that there are ongoing "behind the scenes" advances which we may not always readily appreciate. But such discoveries and discussions are a vindication for the optimism we continue to show in our posts. This company is on a steady path, and (we hope) each step forward is moving it into the highest and most respected circles of medical research.
I agree with your concluding statement, too, SJS, that in the second half of the year we will see a further sign of Wall Street's interest. It may just be another small, incremental advance, but as the company's reputation improves (and heals), I expect that we will trade higher by the end of year.