Good to see that they are still working on developing their science. In the long run, that's what will drive financial success. I'd like to see an update of their scientific progress once per quarter. Even if it is just to say that "development is on track and nothing has changed since the last report" would be helpful.
Let's face it; when there is no news in the investing game, we assume it is bad news.
With 48% short, this analyst was late. How is that so many investors would be short before they said sell? I guess the only explanation is that all those who have already sold are smarter than a paid analyst.
Just a couple days ago some analyst put a $90 price target on FB. Were we to assume it would be a steady rise to that price and more and more people would be willing to paying more and more? Price targets are stupid. They assume that people will buy up until that target and then sell (unless of course the price target is magically increased in the meantime.)
Just speculation on my part; yet given the automation of trading and the massive volume of shares traded, it would seem that those with the least information and resources are least likely to be successful in a short term market trading strategy.
I know that some investors use technicals to make all their buy/sell decisions. I have to assume that all computerized systems always use technicals for any given stock that they have been set to follow. With that, wouldn't make sense to create technicals that support what you are trying to accomplish? For the 200 share retail investor, that isn't possible, but why couldn't the big boy machines do it, especially on an intra-day basis. For many stocks, much of the trading is day trading and if several large traders have a similar sentiment (perhaps brought on by an analyst rating and price target), couldn't they create the pattern that tells everyone else to sell or buy? They can then carry through to a daily chart.
If there isn't any news overnight, look for a down open again tomorrow. Perhaps today's sell rec and 12 target got someone's attention and they'll issue something to counteract the trend.
The activist investor is all over the news and so any analyst must be aware of it. There's nothing specific yet, but that didn't stop the analyst from issuing the sell and 12 price target. Could it be that he wanted to get ahead of any news that might drive the price up? His recommendation benefits those who want to cover short positions and establish long positions. It is unclear whether it will help those who open a short position or close a long position.
Good point, but if I want to buy from Amazon, I go to their site and of course, I get all sorts of advertising based on my searches. I'm not sure how FB could supply better, more targeted ads.
Want to see a bump in share price? Buy some weekly options at the market price. You'll see a quick jump in share price, but it won't be sustained. How do I know? Well, I did it by accident and was surprised at how quickly the share price reacted.
You see all the stories about retail sales falling and some restaurants/retailers going out of business. Yet social media makes its money from advertising, supposedly sold to retailers (among others.) Either the number of retailers paying for such advertising will decline (since they are out of business), or perhaps they are figuring out that it just doesn't work.
While it is illegal for corporate employees to trade on inside information, it is not illegal for people with inside information about analyst upgrades/downgrades/targets to trade on that information. Mindless investors will buy or sell on upgrades or downgrades from multiple analysts even though they basically say the same thing.
Lower ore price means lower demand for steel. Follow it through: lower steel prices, less steel based manufacturing, fewer manufacturing jobs, greater unemployment, bigger federal deficits. If the price target were 10-20% lower, I could understand. However 50% lower from a multi-year low seems to suggest the end of the US economy.
Well said. The problem is that we don't know how the company is doing because we get so little financial information from the mgmt. Patents and approvals are great, but nothing thus far has translated into $$$$.
Sorry, but $20 million in cash just isn't all that much for a biotech company that is trying to market its products, engaging in basic research, and patenting/getting approval for new tests. Look at their past sales history: gross margins are actually negative. Sure, I hope that changes quickly and for the better. Yet share price is now at the price of the last secondary (which was a survival move), and cash on hand most likely declined.
If this company did not have any tests on the market, prospects might be perceived to be better. However, the CUP tests they now market have been approved for years and yet sales are still anemic.
If ore prices decline, it is because of declining demand. Thus all the steel producers should also lose value. MT, X, and others should have their price targets cut by 50% as well. Well, we're waiting...
Good point, but we're also getting more efficient at extracting earth commodities. At the same time, gov't regulation increases the cost of business operations. The net result is a squeeze on margins.
We also see a shift in consumer demand, away from products and towards services. When I was 16, I wanted a car. These days 16 year olds want phones and social media apps. That is not only in the US, but also developing nations. Stuff just isn't as important.
The fact that they didn't release any terms of the agreement should make us all suspicious. I suspect that there was no cash up front and that the major bio co simply agreed to pay for testing/development of a product in exchange for a signifcant share of ownership in that product. No,I don't have any facts to support that contention, but then why is this whole deal such a big secret? If you see the cash on the balance sheet at the next semi-annual report, why wasn't it announced as part of the PR?
ROSG is simply not in a good bargaining position. With limited cash on hand, a weak stock price, and no significant sales revenue, management has put the company into survival mode. Keep the doors open and perhaps there will be a breakthrough that turns the company into a biotech growth company. Let's hope it happens.