So the vote was 6-7 to not approve the drug? In other words, if one more person on the FDA panel would have voted to approve the drug would have been on track to receive market approval? Gee, this was supposed to be science and not a court decision or a political poll. In my mind, it either works or doesn't, or works some of the time for reasons unknown. If it works some of the time and causes no harm (and there are no other alternatives), shouldn't it get approval with a big bold warning that says it might not work?
When will we hear of the analyst downgrades? Analysts: you know, those folks who make a big production out of telling you something you already know. The ones I like the best are the "hold" recommendations with price targets below the current price, or the "sell" recommendations with price targets above the current price.
Analysts post their recommendations and price targets not because they want to help the investing public. Rather, they do so to meet their own self-serving objectives. Here's the Play Book:
1) Do not downgrade if you have a working relationship with the company or hope to establish one.
2) If the price got away from you, issue a downgrade so that you can get in at a lower price. Be ready to act quickly.
3) If you have told your clients to buy and bought some for your own account, issue a buy and raise the price target. If you really want to help your friends, provide hints that you'll be providing an upgrade soon.
4) Don't move your price target up or down too much. Big changes aren't credible.
5) If your price target is lower than the current price, be sure to issue a sell rating. Why would anyone hold or buy if the price is expected to go down?
6) Don't fight the other analysts. If they like the company, play along.
7) If your projections turn out to be wrong (typically about 50%), do not revisit or admit mistake. After a while, most folks will forget that you guessed wrong.
8) When you tell jokes about stupid investors, be sure no one can overhear you.
You sound like a an analyst on TV. They only point to their random projections when one works out.
Upgrade one day followed by a downgrade the next. And the market listens to both of them? Goes to show that the real inside information is getting wind of an upgrade or downgrade before it becomes public.
Problem is that target is too far from current price. A nudge up is nice, but a 33% increase without news sounds like wishing. Wouldn't surprise me if they leaked this new target to a few clients, so they could buy yesterday and sell today.
Time for an optimistic press release once again. Any good news has a shelf life of 20 days (sometimes 20 minutes) and so we need something positive in the next couple days to keep the price over a buck.
Yup, he'll sell when he is ready to retire. Any acquiring firm will toss him aside, perhaps with a nice golden parachute to ease his move into retirement.
Off nearly 30% from the highs after earnings announcement. This company, like so many that are short favorites, finally have taught long term investors to look elsewhere. Only when a stock is able to hold a move up for at least a couple of days is it time to consider buying on "good news."
Let me understand. Yesterday, DDD beat estimates for earnings by a massive amount. Obviously the analysts were wrong, very wrong. Yet today, they say the stock is overvalued. They were wrong yesterday, but today they're right? You gotta wonder about investment logic.
At the current price everyone who bought and held yesterday is now underwater. Not some, or most... everyone. How can there be that many idiot investors and one or two smart analysts?
Remember, analysts think that you're an idiot if you don't agree with them. It is no longer a matter of investing in sound companies; you have to invest in the opinions of people you think everyone else will listen to. Earnings? Not important. One of these days we'll have a company conference call in which they start off talking about their upgrades and ignore everything else.
Ya can't trust the analysts. If DDD were privately held and any of these companies were going to be the brokers for the public offering, they'd ignore all the negatives and give twice the weight to the positives. As it is, I think they are simply trying to justify their previous recommendations. Like a retail investor who has made a bad decision on any stock, they figure to double-down in hopes of recovering.
All electric vehicles are eligible for a tax credit, whether they are Tesla or Chevie or Toyota. As the number of electric vehicles increases, net tax revenue decreases because of the tax credit and the fact that these vehicles don't incur any gas taxes. So, in time our politicians are going to have to come up with a new model for generating tax revenue to fund hi-way construction and repair. Of course higher taxes on green vehicles isn't going to help come election time and so I'm fairly confident that the reduction in tax revenue will have to become a near crisis before anyone acts. By that time, Tesla will be big enough that should they falter, they'll be given a GM style bailout. Ironic isn't it? We bail out GM and then provide tax credits to buyers of Tesla's so that Tesla can compete with GM. Everybody is happy!