Let's hope so. Today's dip was interesting -- no news, just a quick dip. Looks a lot like a grab for shares prior to a run over $1.50, maybe higher.
I find the most recent Yahoo news items for SOL to be interesting. One is a confusion with a So. African company that has absolutely nothing to do with our SOL. The other is vaguely of interest since it mentions a competitor selling product. Then, there is the most recent, comparing an unrelated company's turnaround to the fantastic job done at SOL. Wow, SOL is a model on which others are compared!
The screening of news has deteriorated to a loose bulletin board rather than a news source.
Good luck, longs.
Thanks for the link. It seems illogical to me that one can put a certain price target on a stock, then see that several things have improved and yet not be more optimistic. The article mentions several improvement in the prospects and success of SOL, yet no price move? If the converse happened, would they not budge either? Isn't a recommendation based on actual occurrences? And, if occurrences improve, shouldn't the recommendation improve?
Value is a relative thing. Roth says they are still looking for more evidence of success. Fine. So am I. However, when there IS more evidence of success the price ought to be higher. If the price goes to $8.00 per share, are they going to still hold their outlook at $1.45. No, they will have missed the boat. The whole value of a recommendation is to make an educated guess as to which boat will sail the furthest. New evidence of progress ought to increase confidence and price targets, because what other data is more meaningful?
Good luck, longs.
All big companies are bureaucratic. It's impossible to run a large company as an entrepreneurial one. The bigger one becomes, the more systems need to be put in place to manage and that ends up being a bureaucracy. Granted, one can try to implement flexibility, but it is quite a challenge. Hence the opportunity for new entrants who eventually get acquired.
On the flip side, big companies have distribution power and strong sales channels.
I don't doubt that your sources think the company is heavy with management, but is there perspective limited to this one company? All employees in a large company feel frustrations with the pace of things, but they don't quite appreciate the power of the large company, either. It's a balance.
Are they fairly comparing, even able to fairly compare this juggernaut with others? If not, their perspective is limited and of limited value in evaluating the company compared to its competitors and upstarts.
Appreciate your post, but I do think the perspective of your sources likely needs to be tempered.
If that was the only objective and there was no reporting requirement, and there is a "blow," then the news would have been held back until the blow occurred. Achievements are independent of the reports of past performance, at least to some extent. One doesn't necessarily predict the other, though they are related and their is obviously influence/impact.
P.S. I think the report will be okay or better.
Significant news is required to be released promptly. As a result, new developments are rarely released during earnings reports -- doing so is almost an admission of a violation of the requirement to promptly inform. A firm can't "save" news, good or bad.
I wish it wasn't so, but I do agree with your assessment. The profit gain was due to more favorable tax treatment and layoffs. Not a growth story at this point, but rather a retrenchment. Okay, so they have shown to be successful at retrenching, but layoffs and favorable tax treatments are one-time events. They can cut their entire payroll to reduce costs but then have no business.
The price rebound has been far greater than the performance rebound. I think it's due to Midwestern investors and farm-types who are loyal and have a long term outlook. That's admirable, but there isn't enough reason to believe the company is viable in the long term, at this point. Certainly, not viable as a growth stock. Even if the long term investor has confidence, the price of the stock is higher than it ought to be for the outlook for the next few years. Looks like relatively dead money in a stock overpriced by at least 50%, to me.
Good luck, and good luck to the longs that have more confidence in the company. Their trust is admirable.
Thanks for the replies. Of course, more institutional ownership is a sign that professionals consider it a bargain, but that's not much consolation when the stock drops significantly, as it has done. If Alphabet dropped the same percentage in the same amount of time, pundits would be saying the world is coming to an end.
I don't see a "go private" transaction as ultra likely but anything is possible. I'd rather see them leverage their public posture than throw it away in a private bid. My sense is that if they are taking this private, they are in need of counseling about how best to utilize a public company, and how to get some market attention.
Well, if someone(s) is orchestrating a short campaign to drive the price down, they are very successful at getting that done. The big question is, "why" and next is, "when will it end."
This stock has sucked air for so long that it is absolutely frustrating. Any long that thinks this is good is kidding themselves and the rest of us. It's not good.
Generally, and in most cases, that would be true. However, if the prior poster was correct -- that the price was struggling due to free-float liquidity -- then, it stands to reason that reducing the liquidity by buying back shares would exacerbate the problem. Fewer shares in float equals less liquidity, generally.
Sticky fingers or keyboard...that should have been, "If it is the liquidity issue..."
I would guess lack of interest. It is is the liquidity issue, the buy backs are hurting us.
Good observations. I am interested in the answers, also. But, whatever the answers, that stills leaves open the fact that there seems to be fairly low interest in this stock even though there is interest in the sector, which makes even less sense.
(add punch line)
I like the company and am invested, but the stock price performance is definitely disappointing. Manipulation, lack of attention, smelly feet, whatever...at some point performance ought to make the stock attractive and the price ought to rise. It sure seems held back unnecessarily compared to others. Maybe it needs one of those little pills??? Or some naughty magazines....what would be naughty for an LED or solar panel company? Sunlight peaking through at the crack of Dawn?
Good luck, longs.
"If I had a hammer...I'd hammer in the morning...I'd hammer in the evening..all over this land."
So far, this hammer is pretty light duty. The volume has been light, especially adjusted for the dollar volume traded in a day.
Good luck, fellow hammerheads.
yes and no, sort of
They will tell the employees that the current shares are worthless, but will either issue new shares or some kind of performance bonuses to keep key people. Just because they want to keep key people does not imply the stock will survive as we know it.
I am seriously not an expert, nor am I knowledgeable about the scientific efficacy or attributes of the company's products, nor the same for marijuana.
Apparently, those who made the presentation were concerned that marijuana was similarly effective, such that they were concerned about the competitive pressures enough to argue that the company's drug would likely be covered by insurance whereas this competitor, marijuana, would not.
So, to answer your question, it certainly appears the company is worried about that.
Why? Do you have evidence to the contrary?
The news articles say the bankruptcy papers were filed, today, which must imply they were filed early this morning. A "petition" for bankruptcy gets filed with a court and a judge rules to accept the petition and allow the company to have the court's bankruptcy protection from creditors. So, since a judge has to rule on it, to allow it, there is a little time. But, it will most assuredly be approved today or soon, but the approval will be probably be retroactive to today. That's a long way of say, "today."
The start of the process does not imply it's over and done. This will take a while and during that time the stock will likely trade and might go higher or lower depending on news and speculation, but it certainly looks like the common will be cancelled.
The common should no longer be considered an "investment." Those who buy it now hope to sell it to a bigger fool before it is cancelled, and some do make money doing that, but it's not earnings due to the achievements and growth of a company, its reallocation of moneys held by gamblers. Quite different.