Spoke a little too soon there, there seems to be a little dumping going on, with 13k shares at 0.195 and 29.8k at .020. I'd love for this to be looking up in the short term, but there appear to be some people ready to gtf out, and not enough buyers coming in
I certainly hope so, and am further encouraged by the additional bid for 23,566 shares at .20. All that said, however, It does not appear those bids are as interested in specifically buying shares as they are in preventing the price from dropping below .20. If, however, they gradually start to raise their bid price, I might get a little excited...but realistically I'm probably reading too much into it.
Looking at the level II, MAYBE support around .16/.17, but with a low-volume penny stock like this, it's pure speculation. Any panics or even just some small time trader wanting to drive the price down could easily do so. If you're interested in NNLX, it better be for the long haul, or you will be very disappointed.
Hate to say it, but there's nothing rotten at all, there's just no demand and too many people are trying to get out. It's always fun to blame manipulation, but when you're talking about a penny stock with around 60k shares traded a day, you have to face the fact that volatility is inevitable and it's a great way for traders to make a little here or there (hence all the 5-10k trades), swinging the price around without any greater scheme in mind than making a little money. This thing could easily go down to 15 cents this week. I'm in at 0.23 and believe in NNLX, but am currently looking to see some indicator of a bottom before buying in any further. And lets face it, demand won't pick up until someone gives it a reason to.
Awesome news, I had been wondering about the jump myself! This is one of my smaller holdings and I didn't expect much movement in the short-term, but not a bad surprise at all. This was the best link I could dig up based on what baumanncynde said...http://www.marketfolly.com/2012/03/glenn-greenbergs-brave-warrior-capital.html
I'm long on Valence, and hold no faith in Hulbert Interactive (Marketwatch.com's ludicrously biased rating scheme for stocks), but at the same time I do keep an eye on it, and noticed it recently dropped from extremely bullish to somewhat bearish. Other than simply trying to throw the market, does anyone know any possible reasons for this?
Saw this on Reuters today, highilights:
* US at risk of rare earths supply disruptions
* China controls 95 percent of global rare earth supplies
* China plans to raises fees on rare earth exports in 2011
* U.S. needs to boost domestic mining of rare earth metals
*Molycorp largest non-Chinese rare earths firm, the only rare earth oxide producer in Western Hemisphere
I think you are referring to regression to the mean, which is only applicable to infinite and random systems. While time is infinite, using regressions in a predictive fashion at a particular point in history is completely ineffective and leaves out every other important variable (supply, demand, and progression of technology, for example). Applying that principle here would be akin to saying "5 hasn't been a winning lottery number in a long time, so it should pop up very soon." And on that note, regression to the mean is also most aptly used in random systems, which, depending on how well you argue, may or may not apply to the stock market.
Combat outposts and Forward Operating Bases will likely never be the intent for an electric vehicle because, like mentioned before, using a generator to charge an electric vehicle would be counterproductive. I'm not an electrician, but it might also cause issues with Duke systems and Jester vehicles and the like that track and block signals (before you jump on me about an electric engine not emitting a signal, do some research on Sigint capex. If you don't know what it is, don't ask).
However, that being said, there is a perfect opportunity for vehicles powered by valence within the larger bases. While military vehicles typically run on JP-8/MOGAS, any base of size has numerous civilian contractor and OGA vehicles that are ONLY used on the base and run on plane old gasoline; they aren't even authorized/legal to leave and never require the ability to travel extensive distances. This would be a tremendous gain for both the Army and valence!
I apologize in advance for the general irrelevance of this post to Valence, but for anyone interested in Rare Earth's, MolyCorp (MCP) is looking pretty good today, fueled in part by an article from Reuters today highlighting the increasing potential threats and dangers that come from our reliance on Chinese companies for Rare Earth (MolyCorp is American)...
I just realized the stupidity of my previous post, confusing "fuelnation" for "Frito Lay North America." Let the derision and insults ensue, fair enough...
I have no interest in FLNA one way or the other, except for a bit of morbid curiosity about such a low volume sub-penny stock. I happened to check out Fuel Nation's website, and curiously, the "Arabic" and "Russian" pages are all in English. The "Spanish" portion did manage to translate the initial page link, but failed on all of the others. To say nothing of the rest of the "information" posted on this side, these errors would seem to be a significant problem for a start-up company with business in Bahrain, Baghdad, and Moscow. Perhaps someone as informed as yourself about this company could explain?
By the way, how did this company even enter into this conversation?
I've just started looking into it myself. I don't have much information of knowledge yet, but here's a short article with some recommendations that may be of some help...
My mistake. My initial intent was that, although the article is negative, it was the market condition that impacted VLNC and nothing else (as quoted in the article: "Most of us know that money managers, analysts and investors tend to follow the herd without asking whether the herd's behavior is rational").
However, after looking at some overlays of other companies (xide, aone, abat, axpw, etc) it becomes clear that market conditions are not the only variables affecting Valence's performance, and the article you mentioned does appear to be the most likely viable explanation. My apologies.