1. Stevia is an interesting product biologically.
2. You can buy a little STVF without really putting anything serious on the table (sort of like their product line)
3. There is a psychological attraction to a stock trading at one tenth of historical highs.
What bears? You can't short this stock and there are no options available.
I want this stock to succeed, but snake oil salesmen like you actually deter intelligent investors.
How high? Just read a chart. Of course, if you're one of the folks who bought at $3.24, you're probably saying $0.50?!!!! How low can it go?
Momentum means nothing. Revenue and earnings are everything.
1. Hungry guys ALWAYS take a few pennies off the top. The hungriest of all are the pump and dumpers like wise4stocks, frankly. Caveat emptor.
2. A bit of consistency wouldn't hurt. Why don't the pump and dumpers talk about the 20% "crash" after the stock hit $0.52?
3. Rational discussion will ultimately enable rational investors to decide if STVF is right for them. It is right for me, but I refuse to play the hype game, and I think that those who do drive away potential investors who see the red flags in such behavior.
Well put. Pump and dump tactics actually hurt the prospects of the stock, since intelligent investors will see them for what they are and keep the stock at arms length.
There is no product, at least from STVF. If you use Stevia, you are likely getting it through Cargill.
Look at the volumes going back several months. I personally would say "no significance", but you can draw your own conclusions.
I am one of the fortunate few who bought STVF 7 days before last year's 4:1 romp. As it was found money, I put my earnings back in the stock. Unfortanately, I wasn't quite as lucky in picking the bottom, so I'm in at 0.80. Still, I have increased my position and am value ahead.
Reasons for buying in the first place:
1. There are only two ways into Cargill--birth and marriage and I've already done both.
2. I wanted a pure Stevia play because the product made sense.
These two things are still true, and I am content to hold my few thousand shares, despite the 50% haircut I have taken on my second purchase. Note what is absent from my initial reasons:
3. I read a bunch of posts promising that Coke would buy Stevia, or other demonstrably false #$%$.
The truth of the matter is that I found this board after the collapse. Now to my topic line:
Any idiot reading this board can also read a chart. Anyone reading a chart can see the perils of jumping on STVF on the basis of optimism and momentum. People were still buying at 3.30 expecting 12, remember. My unsolicited advice to the Beemers of the world--spend your energy demanding that STVF produce a plan for revenue and to report on said revenue ASAP rather than engaging in fanboism. The would-be STVF investor has good historical reasons for not being caught up in your hype, but every reason to respond to good fundamentals if, in fact, Stevia First ever can demonstrate them.
So movement from $0.30 to $0.35 is positive trending which foreshadows $0.50 and higher, but movement from $0.35 to $0.30 is unsustainable panic selling? Check.
STVF will move up if/when there are positive metrics to justify the move, specifically revenue growth and demonstrable earnings potential. We have already seen how sustainable irrational fanboism is. Anyone here remember $3.20 per share?
Let's see...three employees, no earnings, no evidence whatsoever that STVF is in Coke's plans? Just a thought. Again, I own some STVF because I like the idea, but on what financial basis can you compute a fair value for STVF, let alone one above $1? There simply are no useful metrics.
With respect, it doesn't appear that STVF is even attempting to position itself to profit off of sales. What do they have 3 employees? How much do you think they can produce? They are positioning, if anything, to sell process, and currently doing so at a glacial product. I like the idea of Stevia, but this company has done nothing to warrant your unflagging optimism. FWIW, I own shares.