Granted I now have less hair now then I did a couple years ago and my nerves are probably a little more damaged now. All in all, the strategy worked well here,
I put all my eggs (and then some - margin) in BAC at the end of 2011 and switch to AUDC early 2013.
Strategy worked for me.
Opal and Eagle liquidated their positions earlier this morning, so not sure how Cava's claims can be true. There was no volume at this size aside from these two liquidations earlier.
Short interest is the lowest in terms of borrowed shares since May of 2013.
Clearly either a good sign or someone in the know, knows something and went long.
I would honestly welcome a dilution when the stock trades between the $1.50-$2.50 range. It would make sense then because the price increase it would bode better for allowable terms (investment risk), lower expense and could have ONCS flush with anywhere from $20-40 million extra in the bank.
Sure it would be short term gain, but surely a needed move over the long-term outlook. It's all part of growing up and funding operations.
Not today, but possibly before the end of month, or early next month. We need slow and increment gains, forget the 1-2 day jolts which throws the RSI into the orbit, only to retrace.
I have 124,400 shares long telling me this is a wining pick over the next 12-24/months, if not longer.
Give it time and this will be a $2.50-$3.50 stock before end of the year.
Should we be supporting BullChina's educational-military degree?
His profile states he's from North Korea...aren't they communists?
I do agree, but with biotechs, if you miss the good news, you missed the score. Look at Intercept and Intermune. Still great companies but the 6-10 bagger moves are well behind it.
I would personally watch PACB (following ILMN's path), MACK and NVAX. These companies are going to be the future mover and shakers of biotechs.
I personally like INO as well but it's more of a gamble, at least right now.
Exception? What exception.
I could name around 50 biotechs that were about $1-$2 that are well over $50-$100 around 3-5 years later.
Even monster Illumnia came up from the ashes around $1.40 about ten years ago.
"What I have learned is that pharma stocks are not a long term hold in stage1 or stage 2"
Clearly you haven't learned too well. Pharmacyclics ran from about $1.30 to $140 in about 2.5 years. Guess ya missed that one eh? Luckily I rode the tide since $19.
I suppose it was a good lesson to be learned while I was 19-20 years old and a college student (I was born in 1980), than it would be making the same mistake if I were 40 or older.
Granted my portfolio was toasted then but I came out even better by changing my investment strategy.
Ditto - Same thing here with young Internet stocks here. I was trading in/out while the Internet stocks were imploding (1999-2000). My portfolio eventually hit ZERO after about 12-18/months.
I then invested differently in the Internet-crash another way by acquiring tons and tons of virtual real estate that was selling for mere pennies on the dollar. Fast forward more than 14 years and the Internet business/sector is monster business and I'm the CEO of a virtual real estate company with one employee (myself) that generates around 750-1m annually.
Sometimes you learn from your mistakes by looking at the same glass differently than you previously did.
Might take some time, but I tend to agree. Long-term strategy looks very nice. Still a young company, but I see it definitely taking out the $1 range, then slowly heading north from there over coming months/years.
My investment is purely a long-term play here. Consider my 120k shares locked up and out of traders hands.
Order grabbed 1000 real fast, then stalled forever, then grabbed the 39,000/more shares.
You could see my order fulfilled on the intraday chart totaling 40k.
Order took over 10min to fill and I placed a price slightly above the current market price.
Any idea what the huge lag in finding shares? I didn't even do a all-or-nothing trade.