% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Optical Cable Corp. Message Board

tesiman 111 posts  |  Last Activity: 16 hours ago Member since: Nov 16, 1998
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Nice weekly's ready to run...

    by gatto64it Apr 1, 2016 12:59 PM

    This Order was issued based on the Application filed by the company in February. It is pretty standard in the industry in order to protect information.

    There was no volume today so the move may be just a market order placed at the close. I hope there is more behind the move. We will see tomorrow morning g whether there is any follow through.

  • All patent rights have been assigned by Shaw to the company who is the exclusive licensee. That is why Shaw gets royalty payments and both were named plaintiffs in the litigation against BD.. As such, unless RVP defaults under the license agreement, the patents have no value to Shaw.

    On April 26, 2016 Shaw and other individuals were issued a new patent (#9320469) for a retractable needle for blood gas sampling. This patent was also assigned to RVP.

    My research has not detected any other similar product so it is possible that this patent has substantial value. With the IP, plant and real estate, the company should be worth at least $2/share.

  • what they reaped in compensation they lost several X more in stock price decline

    small consolation for us

  • Reply to

    CEO had interview with Cramer

    by terencemok May 20, 2016 11:39 PM

    My tea leafs are looking pretty good. How is your studying going?

  • In the Politics section (page 10) of today's paper is an article written by Robert Pear titled " Proposal to Reduce Medicare Drug Payments is Widely Criticized". The article points out that most of the members of Congress are AGAINST the Obama administrations proposal to reduce Medicare payments for many prescription drugs. Patient advocates claim that the reductions could "jeopardize access to important medications".

    Despite the scare tactics of our friendly neighborhood short players, the bottom line is that despite all the rhetoric by certain presidential candidates, there is considerable pressure to leave the present system intact and not to rock the boat. Lets face it, voters are more concerned with access to certain drugs then the price Medicare (or their insurance carrier) have to pay for them.

    Our dysfunctional government and politicians, despite their god intentions, like to do a lot of talking but has little capacity to accomplish anything constructive. Believers in capitalism and competition will prevail as the market supply and demand will be most determinative of drug prices. Getting the gov't involved just makes matters worse for the consumer.

  • Reply to

    $64.07- $70.01 (low/high today)

    by tesiman May 18, 2016 4:11 PM
    tesiman tesiman May 23, 2016 1:31 PM Flag

    like I said- wild swings in the pps are pretty normal with this one

  • Reply to


    by tesiman May 19, 2016 4:36 PM
    tesiman tesiman May 20, 2016 5:57 PM Flag

    Management was the direct cause of the price plunge due to their aggregrious behavior in ignoring Privet's letter. They knew Privet would bail and they should have lined up a buyer to take the block.

    Quite candidly, management has failed to perform and done virtually nothing to justify their large pay checks.

  • Reply to

    Think about the possibilities....

    by moneynow27 May 20, 2016 10:26 AM
    tesiman tesiman May 20, 2016 10:38 AM Flag

    The best- we won't be hearing from markslempf or buffygump today

  • tesiman by tesiman May 20, 2016 10:01 AM Flag

    Aggressive buying at the open. News leak or short attack?

  • Reply to

    level 2 trading...

    by rookiepennie May 19, 2016 2:01 PM
    tesiman tesiman May 19, 2016 6:59 PM Flag

    Reading the recent SEC filing, it appears that Shaw believes that sales will pick up justifying buying expensive new molding machines. So if you believe that the intrinsic value of the company is worth $2+, then when you factor in the litigation value you can easily conclude that the risks going forward are pretty nominal.

  • Reply to

    $64.07- $70.01 (low/high today)

    by tesiman May 18, 2016 4:11 PM
    tesiman tesiman May 19, 2016 6:53 PM Flag

    It is a favorite of short sellers because it can be easily manipulated. Look at:

    1. the big spread between the bid and ask;
    2. the lack of any consistent buyers showing sizable bids;
    3. the lack of any activist investor; and
    4. the bad news coming out of Lending Club et. al.; and
    5. the float is so low.

    What is wrong with the fundamentals? They have a strong balance sheet, a buy back and a competent CEO.

    I find your posts directed to me to be somewhat condescending, I always try to be respectful.

    Whether you are long or short is irrelevant to me nor do I care whether you agree with my approach. Everyone should do their own due diligence and any posting on the Yahoo board has negligible value.

  • tesiman by tesiman May 19, 2016 4:36 PM Flag

    That what the trading feels like. The management will let it slide to .25 and then offer to take the company private at .75!

  • Reply to

    $64.07- $70.01 (low/high today)

    by tesiman May 18, 2016 4:11 PM
    tesiman tesiman May 19, 2016 4:31 PM Flag

    If the CEO holds 15 percent and institutions hold 80 percent, the public float is less then 1 million shares. How can there be a 60+ percent short position ? This is a great opportunity for a short squeeze.

  • Reply to

    $64.07- $70.01 (low/high today)

    by tesiman May 18, 2016 4:11 PM
    tesiman tesiman May 19, 2016 4:04 PM Flag

    Although intuition plays a roll, spending a lot of time watching this stock is the most important factor

    I am not always right-far from it since I am 4 points away from breakeven on this go around with tree. With that said, tree is one of the few stocks that I trade and has been very good to me. It is a well run company with very good fundamentals.

  • Reply to

    $64.07- $70.01 (low/high today)

    by tesiman May 18, 2016 4:11 PM
    tesiman tesiman May 19, 2016 2:33 PM Flag

    At 2 pm the shorts hit the stock again dropping it $1.6 in less then 5 minutes.

    A major problem with TREE is that it is too small a float to attract real institutional buyers. They should go for a 3 for 1 split to increase the number of shares.

  • Knowing how volatile this stock trades, I put in a bid at $65.50 before the open. Within a few minutes after it opened I had bought the stock. It then dropped to $64 on a total of less then 20,000 shares. By 10 am it was back to even with about 50,000 shares having been traded.

    This stock has become a #$%$ shoot. I am not a day trader but I suspect that someone is making money on the wild swings. his stock is not for the faint of heart!

  • Reply to

    10q out

    by cpatrader2001 May 17, 2016 2:09 PM
    tesiman tesiman May 18, 2016 1:40 PM Flag

    I assume they tried since we learned from the oral argument that the consequential damage award was pretty much conceded. Also, they settled the previous lawsuits for big money . Shaw is on a vendetta seeking the "kill shot". I don't believe that money is his motivation.

  • Reply to

    10q out

    by cpatrader2001 May 17, 2016 2:09 PM
    tesiman tesiman May 18, 2016 12:10 PM Flag

    There is no timeline in Fed. Court. You can get a ruling the same day or wait for a year. With that said, 3-6 months is the norm.

  • Reply to

    10q out

    by cpatrader2001 May 17, 2016 2:09 PM
    tesiman tesiman May 18, 2016 8:40 AM Flag

    More cheap stock for Shaw and dilution. Anyone who follows this company recognizes that Shaw controls everything related to RVP and that the shareholders have never been part of his equation. The litigation is all about Shaw vs. BD and not RVP vs. BD. RVP is not a real "public" company but merely an alter-ego for Shaw. As such "enhancing shareholder value" is an abstract foreign concept that appears to have little relevance to management.

    I bought the stock solely based on the jury verdict and the prospect that there would either be a settlement or the verdict would be upheld. It is an unrealistic prospect of Shaw ever experiencing a cathartic revelation that he is running a public company for the benefit of all shareholders. If so, he would have been more receptive to settling the case at a substantial premium a long time ago.

    So be it. Rah Rah, Go Shaw!

  • Reply to

    Volume Today

    by tesiman May 17, 2016 3:35 PM
    tesiman tesiman May 18, 2016 8:21 AM Flag

    Managements' greed was a reason why I believe that Privet would have been successful in a proxy battle

2.5144-0.1556(-5.83%)May 25 11:00 AMEDT