Ignore them to get a clean view of the board. Unfortunately, that pretty much leaves the board empty at this point. Hopefully we get some real contributors here.
I added 50% to my holdings at 18 yesterday. They are very early-stage, so that's one reason for the skittishness. But unlike most clinical-phase biotechs, they actually have a revenue stream (albeit small) in the form of licensing, so their cash burn rate is lower than their peers. The successful IPO gives them enough cash for a long time, reducing the risk of a secondary offering anytime soon, which is otherwise usually a concern with companies like this. So I still think this is a good time to load up. Caveat Emptor, as always.
Anything in the twenties is a screaming buy, IMHO. The small float and low number of shares outstanding means RGNX could take off quickly and move fast once it does. At $24 it has a $600M market cap; $40 would give it a billion dollar valuation. Compare that to RARE's market cap of over $4 billion (currently trading over $100/share) and you'll have an idea of how much headroom RGNX has relative to downside from here.
Relax. Down a couple bucks is hardly "tanking". If you're so worried that one article is going to crush the stock, you don't have much confidence in your investment and should probably sell now.
Having the company respond to the Barrons article only gives it credibility and smells desperate. Better to disregard the article as meaningless, robbing it of its power, and go about the business of running the company. That sends the message that the article is not worth the trouble, illustrates its insignificance, and shows that management has more important things to do than respond to a glorified blogger's worthless opinion.
Thanks for the buying opportunity, Barrons. What a vapid article! But I appreciate that market makers will use it as an excuse to gap GPRO lower. I predict this will be a short-lived buying opportunity for those with the balls not to get sucker punched by Barrons' BS.
Did you read the article about it? They *did* send a phone up with it. That's how it was found and returned later, via the phone's SIM.
...and, btw, I agree with you about the bogus research note and personally I think Apple acquiring GoPro is a pipe dream. I just don't agree that it wouldn't make sense on some level.
GPRO is more than just action cams, drones, and other hardware. "Think about it", as you say.
For the record, I'm in at 32, so no substantial loss here, at least for me.
Would have cost them even less do develop high-end headphones. Instead they bought Beats. Why? It's the brand, not the tech.