Sal, what is it with supposed owners of this stock that they actually bash it? They are either Eyeore type pessimists or have self esteem issues. I would never own a stock I wasn't enthusiastic about. Something's wrong. Hidden agenda or something...
Further, bacon on cornflakes isn't creative, bourbon on cornflakes is creative.
Au contraire! Bourbon not only has the best Yahoo message board handle, he is rock solid on credibility, knowledge of biotech investing and the exact opposite of a liar and a scammer. I believe you may be projecting.
Good public service message Mensa. You're exactly right I think. Looking at the board is a pretty strong buying signal with all the maniacs screaming sell (likely while they are pressing buy).
The all in mentality seems like a recipe for getting whipsawed. I've got some TPIV with a nice gain of 163%. A pullback is certainly in order there. I see a lot more upside and lower risk at this point with AVXL. This is a nice place to accumulate for the next leg up.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Ctixers did in fact sell. Here's the post from the TPIV board:
ctixers • 10 minutes ago
and because stocks always go much much lower, or higher than we can ever envision, let's just round it off to an even 40 dollars in 18 to 24 months. so what is that, a 50 bagger? I sold all of my avxl and it killed me, but I had to bite the bullet and do it. Put every single last nickle in this bad boy. over the past week. Less
I'm buying at this level too. If it falls further, which I do not anticipate, I will buy more. I do not like to sell low. I like to buy shares of investors selling low. My reasons for buying the stock are unrelated to a temporary possibility of a downdraft. If it happens, I'll take it as an opportunity to buy lower than I thought I could. If I am wrong about my entry point and it falls further, I have left some room to correct the mistake by averaging down a bit.
Chasing the stock later is the alternative.
Dallas, I've been waiting patiently to get back in on SYN. Got in fairly large this morning, scraped a few at $1.81, most at 1.83ish. Pretty happy with the position. Buying low is the first best step in making money.
It's funny how the $5 threshold myth has persisted for so long. Market cap is actually a bigger factor than share price for many institutions, but even micro caps are owned by a lot of institutional investors as you pointed out.
There may be some institutional investors where a $5 share price threshold exists, but more often it is to bail out of a stock as it falls through $5. Overall it is simply not true to say institutional investors cannot buy stock below $5.
Don't care for inane bashing myself, but I do care a great deal about hearing contrary opinions. There are reasons this stock has underperformed, and cheerleading through the losses is not the best use of a message board.
I like the science of ONCS much more than I do the leadership. It's difficult to navigate a complex product launch as well as financing without both operating at a high level. I'm still not sold enough on the CEO to pull the trigger and re-buy. I don't think his credentials and experience are sufficient to the task. Buying a stock without belief in management is not something I ever want to do.
That's the issue for me plain and simple. Not bashing, just being honest. I had a hefty position at one time, but sold it when I started seeing cracks in management credibility. I'll keep my eye on the stock and if it gets cheap enough I may reconsider and just buy the science without regard to the management, but it's not there yet.
I don't think there is any doubt Suri is not particularly shareholder oriented. The stock will have to go up in spite of him, rather than because of him. This company is managed in a very old school 'play not to lose' model for a modern tech company.
I have to respectfully disagree on the CEO. He did not take enough care with managing expectations with investors. That's a rookie error that a seasoned CEO would never do. I exited the stock earlier based on that. Sad to see the carnage falling on a company with a good product.
A lot of this failure rests on the shoulders of the CEO.
Agree Sumfax. I think once you get past 12 - 15 stocks or so in a portfolio it's very difficult to beat the market - if that is a main portfolio goal.
In my more active "trading" portfolio I only have 5 stocks right now, but I have analyzed each pretty thoroughly from a value investor standpoint. The main strategy I have in this is to buy very low. Two have tripled (RAD and NOK) which is the payoff for higher risk and patience.
My retirement related portfolio is risk averse and someone else manages it. My trading account is a hobby, but lucrative lately.
Agree completely poor. The FDA is like the Wizard of Oz. Cloak and dagger phonies behind a protective screen.
In a reasonable world, a decision like this would take three months at the most, with interim communication. Like - got any more current data we could consider? Or, we have a question or two before we make a final decision on this. The fact that it dragged out for a year with nothing but a disapproval and a vague request at the end for more data is unconscionable and completely, utterly and entirely incompetent.
I sold my shares before the verdict, because I sensed with the time delay this was going to be negative, but still, what an unnecessary time burden and utter waste of money for GTHP. Good product, obviously.
"The research determines that activating the sigma-1 receptor with agonists can potentially reduce the devastating impact of tau dysfunction."
It is the word "potentially" in the PR that makes your statement absolutely correct Bourbon.
You are right CT. AVXL IR specifically said corporate update only, no PR. But a lot of key institutional investors will be there who will hear the story for the first time and likely be impressed.