Both. imo beaten down tickers got some relief when major indexes, ie blue chips, crashed. People are looking for places to jump in for the bounce, beaten down oversold stocks are a great idea. Could buy at&t for a few %, or go for something that might swing double digits
Also funny that China is trying to blame us for their bubble bursting. Typical communist/socialist reaction, look for someone else to blame, preferably a 'capitalist' stooge
jake, I agree with what you're saying, I'm not fully communicating my opinion in a few quick lines on the message board here. yes, they've achieved a lot. I am talking about the business model being proven, the stock becoming a winner. I bought back in on Friday, but not for a lot. those with an overweighted position can boast of how smart they were when this thing skyrockets. but I've seen a lot of stocks that looked like a sure thing, I prefer to be a little more cautious. at this level, I think there will be time to jump in for a bigger position before it really takes off. for now, if things don't go well or take a long time doing so, my cash is safe.
Chem, I've had plenty of positive comments about ONVO. The disease models alone could end up being one of the biggest advances in 100 years. But we are where we are right now. Nothing is proven yet, and it's naive to think otherwise.
Having facilities means nothing. You can start a company, hype your hot tech, get hundreds of millions from investors, build facilities, hire dozens of people, pocket millions for yourself and founding partners, go bankrupt, and it's all legal.
I know, but the market is full of companies with valid technology being used to pump an invalid business model. I'm not saying it's that bad, but it's a red flag to me since the comment is so patently false.
yes but the point is that it's good business to keep customers happy, keep them coming back. if you have a contract forcing them to pay well above market price, and you make them stick to it, they will not be happy. you will be penny wise and pound foolish because you've lost a long term customer for short term revenue.
scenario: they win in court, force Eastman to pay up. Eastman pays, but not a penny more than the court says they must. as soon as legally possible, they take all business elsewhere. other customers see what happened and are very cautious about contracts and pricing lock ins. they get a few more years out of this one customer at best, and then they are guaranteed to lose 30% of their business. how does a stock trade with something like than hanging over it's head? not well. just being realistic here.
microwave ovens were invented in the 1940's, first commercial models were available in the1950's, more affordable models began to appear in the 60's and 70's, yet even in the mid 1980's less than half of US households had one. immediate adoption? In fact cell phones were adopted much more quickly, since the first one came out in the early 70's but networks didn't even exist until 80's at the earliest.
this lie caught my attention because my stepfather was one of those early adopter types and when I was growing up (I'm in my 40's now) he had an old microwave oven in his kitchen which was one of the first models to ever come out. it looked like it was right out of the 1950's, which had surprised me at the time so I asked him about it and he said yes, his FATHER had bought it, either in the 50's or 60's. remember they were still quite rate in the 70's and didn't become commonplace until the late 80's. obvious misstatements of fact like this are a huge red flag, after reading your story I am much more cautious about buying shares of this company.
could be nothing but anyone familiar with how con games work will understand what I'm saying here. a simple little statement like that, which is factually incorrect and easy to verify, is a very standard red flag. the idea is that if you are willing to believe something so patently false, it's your own fault for falling for the rest of it. all they do is lay the trap and leave you every opportunity to avoid it. when you don't, it's now more your fault than theirs. sounds stupid but this is a big part of the con psychology. you have to suspend your disbelief, and the more willfully you do so the better the game works. not saying this little bit of nonsense is proof the whole thing is a con, but it is a huge red flat, more so than it may seem.
ps if I were trying to bash this stock I'd be posting a main thread with a catchy title instead of 3 levels down in someone else's pump feed
last I checked the onvo chart, along with a lot of biotechs, was basically a carbon copy of the IBB. far as being up, probably a lot of shorts finding better places to put their money now that this is pretty close to bottom and the whole market is tanking. could be the sign of a bottom here. could also be a sign that investors are looking around for bargains, which means the indexes could start to bounce. but after the past 2 days I'm not going to jump in on a bounce prematurely, doubt anyone is very anxious to be the first lemming :D
Market needs a reason to hit new highs. Things have been pretty negative lately. If you're not familiar, read up on deflation. Fed has been fighting it for years. They caught a lot of heat over QE because people were worried about inflation. Never happened. The money just plugged the hole in the balloon, or went straight into the pockets of billionaires. Fed can't raise rates if we're teetering on the edge of deflation ('strong dollar' = deflation). Dollar up means prices down. Commodities, stocks, goods and services, taxes... but not debts. Inflation is good for debtors. Deflation is bad. This is the macro problem lurking behind the headlines. Watch Japan, they're trying to spend themselves out of their problems right now. If it works, could be a bull indicator. If not...
Stimulus measures have about run their course and market knows it's propped up on air. There's little real optimism, not many people believe there has been a recovery since 2009.
No offense, but if you create a special group where only positive comments are allowed, aren't you worried that your views will just stray from reality?
Thought this story looked familiar... yes I remember that. If they were depending on shareholders to prop them up, they're toast. Shorts claim it's the CEO's brother in law accusing them of cooking the books