That's my point - I don't think you can use "techinals" (sic) on this stock given my previous comment. So anything you "learn" here should be tossed...jmo
That's BS. I just posted yesterday that the FDA approved 98 percent of all high-risk medical devices submitted during the most recent fiscal year, the highest rate in at least 15 years. Why would they single out this particular stock to cover their azzes on?
Others have claimed it would be approved simply because the FDA wants competition for robotic surgery (ISRG) while others insinuate it wasn't approved because of FDA corruption and bribes - all excuses and conjecture.
There are simply too many people caught up in the gambling part of "investing" that they don't realize that there is ample opportunity to make money after the product gets approved and the company demonstrates that it can sell the device(s). For example, I bought ISRG around $16 after reaching the previously mentioned milestones and looks where it sits now. I'm not saying that people shouldn't take a small speculative position - but for goodness sake, don't bet your life savings on the unproven as it appears many here have already done.
I don't trade this stock but I would give you a thumbs down just for all the pathetic whining...
"Let me know your answer."
Also, I'll let you know my answer when you give me a list of industry stock symbols to compare with..oh, by the way...those medical symbols that you provide have to be a monopoly in their field.
"The Food and Drug Administration says it approved 98 percent of all high-risk medical devices submitted during the most recent fiscal year, the highest rate in at least 15 years. The 98 percent approval rate compares to 86 percent last year and 70 percent in 2012, according to recent FDA figures. It's the highest level since at least 2001 and the first time the approval rate was in the 90's since 2005, when it was 90 percent."
I think you are very smart for pulling out of your short position...
LOL - two shorty messages by two different aliases who just became MB members today - classic.
Your "logic" is all over the place. The vast majority of non-drug products that have recalls (e,g., cars) are not removed from the market - they fix the problems and continue on as ISRG has already proven. The benefits of robotic surgery far outweigh the minuscule "malfunctions" that you allude to.
LOL - didn't you just mention this a couple of weeks ago?
" I would say we have at least a 95% chance of approval. FDA wants to approve because the want more competition in the market place. If you have invested, I hope it's because you believe in their new disruptive technology. Because that's what it is. A game changer in surgical robotics. Not once, but twice."
"There's no real topline growth left..."
LOL - end of discussion with idiots who don't listen to CC or read earnings reports to understand the reasons for blowing past their procedure estimates while also raising guidance. And I'm sure you are quite aware that Q1 is typically the slowest quarter - right?
LOL - what a buffoon you are. Are you not the one that originally referenced the article in order to claim that "it's time to sell"?
"...many hospitals have been going out of business and under serious budget cut..."
Even if that is/were the case, how would it affect the rate of procedures needed to be performed? Clearly not at all because the rate of da Vinci procedures has steadily grown YOY despite all of the MANY hospitals that you claim have "gone out of business".
Looks like most Chinese rather throw their money towards cheap Ponzi scams rather than invest in legit stocks like ISRG.
"Some 900,000 investors in China were played in what's turned out to be the scam of the century carried out by peer-to-peer lender Ezubao. Having snatched upwards of 50 billion yuan ($7.6 billion) off their victims, detained higher-ups have confirmed that their company was indeed "a complete Ponzi scheme..."
LOL - I was wondering when you were eventually going to show up here.
Considering TITXF just recently took a 40 percent haircut due to their never ending dilution, I think the term you are looking for is "implode".
"They always have such a negative slant..."
I don't think the article put forth a negative slant but rather, it simply level set the new situation. How do you suggest the author go about setting a positive spin given the recent decision?
"I don't know where they get it can take "2 years for the DeNovo" process"
The article did not say it would take two years. It implied that it can possibly take a couple of years for de novo filings due to their "highly variable review times, reflecting the rarity with which these types of applications are filed with the FDA, along with the agency's own fuzzy guidelines surrounding this process."
Further down in the article he clarifies what he thinks is the best case scenario:
"Last year, the average review time for a de novo application stood at around one year, implying that SurgiBot's regulatory fate probably won't be decided until at least the second half of 2017 in perhaps a best case scenario."
"The MF articles leave so much information out that is truly pertinent to understanding the full picture of TRXC."
Yeah, it should have at least included the recent explanation from the company/management on why the FDA didn't approve it.
Very good point about monitoring execution...I personally would not invest a significant amount in TRXC until I see proof of substantial sales. I am an early investor in ISRG but I still waited until 2003 to buy ISRG because I wanted to hear feedback from the surgeon community before doing so.
My point is, if you look at the chart for ISRG from 2003 through 2016, you will see that there is still plenty of time to make significant investment gains if TRXC eventually develops a competitive product. Could I have invested in ISRG earlier and made a larger percentage gain? Absolutely, but my initial capital investment would also have probably been smaller due to the lack of clarity that I mentioned previously.