Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
indeed...just had this conversation with a vpig investor. its not about how much you raise, or at what level the raise is priced, rather than from whom was the money raised.
don't blame the player, blame the game...
for the most part conventional valuation metrics (such as revenue, earnings and cash flows) do not drive price in today's equity markets. if fundamentals really mattered, the spx would not be trading at such lofty levels, social media companies with no revenues would not be acquired for 10s of billions of dollars, and cyrx would be trading at much higher levels. in the case of the equity markets, the fed's qe/zirp policy and the attendant implied put, removed all doubt and all risk as to where the best risk adjusted yield was to be found.
cyrx,on the other hand is not so fortunate, and does not have a benefactor to support its share price. there is a paucity of retail and institutional investor participation that is evident in the daily volume figures. this leaves the stock as an unattractive option to even daytraders because of the lack of liquidity and volatility. unfortunately, there must be continuous buying in the form of of long term investors if a stock is going to trade higher, and stay higher. in cyrx's case, everyone who wants to own the stock, already does. the company needs to generate new buyers that will provide strong and consistent retail support. optimally, they need to get sp over $2.00 and keep it there, so that they can at least, up-list to the NYSE LLC, which would open the gate for institutional participation.
the dilemma that cyrx finds itself in, is that the company is in a niche business, which does not fit into a high profile sector or is affected by a current market theme. pot stocks & fuel cell stocks have been recent over-performers, but unfortunately, cryogenic shippers don't stand much of a chance of becoming the next hot sector that gets ramped up in any ensuing market rallies.
i actually like the company, and bought stock in the low 0.30s and i am trying to find the justification to hold onto my longs. with an individual like rathman involved with the company, they should be able to raise capital for the company and retail support for the company's stock.
I believe that is the duty/responsibility, or at the very least; it is incumbent on one who so graciously dispenses "reality checks", that he has (at-the-very-least) a familiarity with reality himself, or perhaps herself, considering the op's moniker.
Conventional valuation metrics (such as revenue, earnings and cash flows) are rarely considered in the on-line space. Instead, the metric that the market bases stock pricing on is subscriber/users, and data.
Seen from this perspective, the picture becomes clearer and more understandable. As Oink! grows its subscriber base, they become a more attractive acquisition target for a company looking to expand its user base and increase engagement in the company's ecosystem.
Potential acquirers of companies like Oink, rely more on a gut feel than numbers. If they feel there is a strategic niche that can be filled by acquiring a nascent company, they will pay market price and higher. Right now, market mood and momentum favors high valuations, as we have have witnessed over and over again.
stockwatchman, no offense taken; however, the proverbs were Hungarian, the "sarcasm", ought better be described as cynicism, and the "negativity" (although justified) is in reality, objectivity, painfully made obvious by the > 50% negative return generated by the stock, while the s&p gained almost 50% in the same period of time.
bbf: uh huh, & fran tarkenton is coming back to play qb for the vikes, too.
The good news is Friday, December 27 (T+3 settlement) is the last day for tax-loss selling.
Klase, your welcome. A good product, a large market, and a very scalable idea. That's what is needed for a company to be successful. Unfortunately, I think Cryoport's Achilles heel is that it is a marginal niche business that appeals to a very narrow market. Investors tend to prefer businesses in sizable industries that are easily scalable, and where they can drive higher margins over time. Facebook and Twitter comes to mind as I watch their respective stocks go ballistic.
No Herr Klase, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid, I'm mixing it up and serving it. And while your cynicism for a startup's potential is very well founded, your numbers are a wee bit off. The success rate is more like 10 out of every 100, not 1 out of every 100. In any event, you can do all the DD you want -if its in the public domain then there isn't any edge in knowing something that everyone else knows -its already been priced into the market. That goes for past frivolous lawsuits and past spurious negative comments disseminated by none other than Mr. Shorty.
No, CYRX is not a safer bet because it has only one way to capture value, and that is through sales of its product. Oink can build value by generating revenues from its use, and by building its database. It also possesses a very strong and dedicated investor base, which includes John Paul DeJoria and Dale Jensen, who are both actively involved in the company, and are not just figureheads. More importantly, the stock is very closely held and does not have to resort to toxic lenders of last choice to raise capital.
The ticket window is closing, my friend.I would get on board the piggy as soon as possible. Doesn't mean you have to give up hope on CYRX - I will seriously consider buying it on scale down basis starting at 0.24 cents.
Sorry, but as usual, your argument, doesn't have a leg to stand on, because you neither understand the space, nor the market. Oink is in the "consumer web" space which is a world unto itself. Google, Apple, Facebook, Paypal and a myriad of other mega-successful companies all experienced the same revenue generation, or lack thereof, when they were in the development stage. That’s why they are called “development stage” companies. BTW: Instagram was bought for $1 billion and had zero revenue, along with the acquisition of YouTube.
Startups aren’t supposed to be revenue machines right away; at first they’re designed as “business model” experiments. In fact, revenue doesn’t actually matter for finding hot early stage startups, because it is a “lagging indicator” of success. Investors will have already missed the window of massive upside that comes with getting in before the company starts to generate revenue and /or profitability. The idea is to speculate intelligently, and invest early enough to capture the bulk of the massive upside that comes with getting in while the company is pre-rev.
By the time a startup has a predictable and steadily growing revenue stream, it has built a product and brought it to market successfully, so the risk of investing in it has gone down tremendously and so has the reward. In VPIG’s case, the company is 4 years old and right on time for successful commercialization with a 5 year runway. it will probably be trading at $5.00 and be on the verge of being acquired by the time it starts reaching revenue milestones.
From the standpoint of competitiveness and the potential capture of value, established companies like Facebook, and new entrants like Oink, are leveraging data driven strategies, to innovate, compete, and capture value. With every new subscriber their data bases grows, and along with it, the company's valuation - making it an infinitely more attractive target for acquisition. This is why revenues are essentially meaningless when it comes to determining the company's enterprise value.
The myth that its cheap to build a consumer web company is about as anachronistic as the notion that revenues are required for a company to have a stratospheric valuation. Oink has raised 30MM, which is a drop in the bucket. Facebook raised 2.33 BB before going public and Twitter 1.16BB. So what, if Oink has a nascent monetization strategy and no revenue. All you have to do is look at a company like Pinterest, another social media company with a niche target audience, that also has little to no revenue, but a whopping $3.88BB valuation, and you will begin to understand this space.
No, that's exactly like "the-pot-calling-the kettle-black". And yes, I was wrong about WFWL, because I was lied to and misled. Even Kleiner-Perkins doesn't get it right all the time. You see the difference between amateurs and professionals is, pros make money most of the time, and lose occasionally; and amateurs lose money most of the time, and make money occasionally.
So, before you play the "hypocritical outrage" card, please remember that I was 100% correct about CYRX, and this is the Cryoport board, not the WFWL board. And those who heeded my caveats and advice years ago, were not only extremely grateful, but much richer, (or at least less poor), for having listened to me.
In any event, there is no need to question my motives. It is naive to believe that my comments, whether positive or negative, on any stock, would have any impact on share price. Only the accuracy of my comments should be questioned, because that's what is or isn't, going to make you money. Just ask all the former board members that are long gone, and all the happier and richer for it.
>>He stated he owns VPIG. Well, in my opinion, if you drop the V, the symbol would more appropriate. << I don't know how I neglected to remark on your rather unimaginative attempt at sarcasm, but the "V" not only stands for "virtual", but for "valuation"; as in $3-4BB. That would make it a "golden pig" and a +$30.00 stock. Today's price action may or may not be the pig wagging the tail, but if you really understood the company's business model, had a familiarity with management, and were knowledgeable about the investor base; you would not be wasting your time and money on CYRX. This is not to say that Cryoport the company will not succeed, nor that CYRX is not a value at some point in time. It just says your money is better off invested in VPIG, in the near term.
be careful what you wish for - 90 minutes left and then there's Monday.
i am not trying to be smug nor demeaning, just observational.
there are patterns in price action and similarities between market events that can have implications and relevance in today's markets. both human behavior and algorithmic manipulation leave fractal patterns across multiple time-frames that are actionable when confirmed by a convergence of other signals. only when data is slight, partial, or biased, is the decision process subject to fallacy. there's hardly a day that goes by, that isn't groundhog day in one or more markets, or that an actionable divergence with seasonality is presented that can't be used as a signal.
as long as objective heuristics are applied in one’s decision making, that does not allow stress, cognitive load, emotions, and especially bias to non-linearly affect the process, the result can be well defined, reproducible trades with a proven edge. however, the bulk of your analysis is mostly post hoc, and relies on the visual inspection of charts based on simplistic criteria and lagging indicators. One reason that it is naive and useless, is because it rarely provides estimates of expectation or probability of success, and very often is plagued by confirmation bias. in other words, you will seek out the data point(s) that reenforces your directional bias, while ignoring the ones that don't.
to use a candlestick shtik as an example, it's true that a lot of extremes have reversal days, evidently and elegantly displayed on a candlestick chart, in a bearish engulfing reversal formation, let's say; so the probability is a reversal will occur with an attendant price extreme. but, it does not tell you the probability of having an extreme and a sustained change in market trend-given that you have a reversal day.
of course, these approaches are intoxicating to the contrarian, but in a trending or momentum driven market, they only serve as a rationale to prematurely exit a successful trend following trade. in effect most naive technical analysts and retail traders remember when their methods and indies worked (selection bias) and forget the many more times they failed. This level of analysis has negative expectation, which is a fact that professionals traders realize.
I think you're looking for the term "ad hominem" attack, you illiterate moron (perfect example, right there). The restraining order expired in June, loser ( oops, there it is again). I'm free to travel anywhere in Orange County now, and where I live, I'm now free to carry. Now there's a scary thought, isn't it?
So as not to be lost-in-the-shuffle; in the words of Tagore, let me not forget for a moment - the poster child for the Dunning–Kruger effect. (I"ll forgo cutting and pasting the definition from Wikipedia, and allow you to look it up, Penny.) I very much understand your perspective; it's the perspective of every retail trader in existence, and the reason why retail traders make money some of the time, and lose money most of the time, while professional traders make money most of the time, and lose occasionally.
Wi-Fi-Gi is obviously, a source that can't be taken seriously, on any level.The accuracy of his comments and his motivation for making them are blatantly obvious. It is naive to believe that his comments will have any impact on the market, anyway. This guy is not short 300 shares, nevertheless 3,000,000 shares. That is an unmitigated fabrication and grandiose fantasy, that can easily be discredited with a look at the short interest.
After a little research and deductive reasoning, I have a pretty good idea who this basher may be. (His name, address, and phone number can be provided for those who are interested in dealing with him, in a more pro-active manner). He is a pathetic, disenfranchised, loser who lives with his mommy. He is flat broke and incapable of generating any income, so he spends his time degrading real companies, with real management, and real promise; in order to take the focus off his own sorry excuse for a life.
In any case, the true believers in this company realize, that the company's imminent success, will soon rid us of this pitiful pathogen.
true, you must understand the past to judge the present. the past acts as a marker and a point of reference. technical analysis tracks the past and reflects the present but does not predict the future. fundamental data tracks the past and is evidence of the present, but does not predict the future.
an investor must draw his own conclusions about what the past activity of traders says about the future activity of traders, and what past fundamental statistics says about the future activity of the company. but, i’m not quite sure, how you, me, or anyone else on this board is going to determine if the stock is undervalued, if the company has “future potential”, if revenues will continue to rise, or if sales will result in sustained earnings - no matter how much homework they do.
my only edge is i’m smart enough to know, that I’m dumb enough to know, that i don’t know the answers to the above questions. instead, i try to uncover what game is working and play that game. I don't cling to labels. It's clear what is working right now, and CYRX is not it. The real $64,000 question, which adjusted for inflation, would be somewhere north of 1/2 a million dollars, is "do you want to be a millionaire?" And if you do, you want to put your money to work where it has the highest probability of profitability.
14 years as a company and almost 10 years as a publicly traded company, whose SP hasn’t even kept up with the pace of inflation, and people still look at the market ass-backwards. what they don’t understand is the market is the dog and the investors, technicals, fundamentals, news, etc. is the tail. why does the dog wag it’s tail? because the dog is smarter than the tail. if the tail were smarter, it would wag the dog.
Well, it's that indomitable spirit that has kept this company alive for so long, along with some irrational and wishful thinking, that has in some cases, kept the participants of this board, captivated and invested for so so long. Of course, the future is fundamentally unpredictable, so there aren't any assurances that your investment in CYRX will pay off big one day.
The burning question is whether there has been some fundamental change in the company or the marketplace that would invalidate all the past negative statistical evidence. The flag of convenience the CYRX supporters are sailing under now, is an uptick in sales and new management. Unfortunately, this did not result in a positive correlation in share price, yet. Still there is hope that the product mis finally becoming adopted and integrated into the marketplace. Product differentiation occurs at many different levels. But overall, especially in B2B markets, it's rational and is driven by utility curves. It's why this company's product has always made an immense amount of sense.
Nevertheless, the company has endured 14 very lackluster years. Once again, this is proof that it is difficult to make judgements about market participants and their motivations. The vendor wants to know, and big corporations spends billions to shape these preferences. But they really can't without unintended consequences. All you have to do is look at JC Penny and Sears and my point will be well illustrated.
Bottom line, is only time will tell if the company is on the right track and if future fundamentals will support the expectations of the investors.
restripe: it really doesn't matter what I think, nor what "cryoport" (the poster) thinks, nor what some paid tout from Zack's says, because you can never know the the accuracy nor the eventual impact on the market of the information you receive, or the motivation of it's source. Behind any source, may hide self-interests, manipulators, and most often, people that simply do not understand the markets nor what drives a stock's price. If they own the stock they have a built in bias that will ultimately inhibit their objectivity so the value of any piece of information you read is exactly zero, especially if it is made public on a message board. Even if it is accurate and not hearsay or wishful thinking, by the time it has hit a message board, it has been priced into the market a few times over.
that being said; and once again reminding you of the aforementioned caveat that the value of what follows is essentially worthless, let me remind you that the only way the price of a stock trades higher and is sustained, is if new investors, preferably institutional and very large retail investors, continually buy the stock. If the price of the stock were to trade and stay above $2.00 it could be up-listed on the NYSE LLC. and optimally, if share price were to stay above $3.00, it could be listed on NASDAQ, and then the party could begin in earnest.
do you see the company turning profitable and perhaps paying dividends in the near future, and even reinvesting some of those profits to ramp their own growth? if you do, then a sustainable rally is possible; otherwise the stock price is probably going to remain in a trading range. can you trade that range and make money - sure, why not?
Herr Klase, you appear to be more than a tad less sharp than the thumbtack Mr. Eponymous sat on. The company was founded in 1999 which means that this "start-up" - and I not only use the term extremely loosely, but overtly facetiously also, has set records for both the longest runway in history and the most arduous wait for future potential. In other words, reductio ad absurdum. Cryoport the company, went public and commercialized their product a long, long time ago. Just because the company has failed to scale its business model, and their product has not been fully adopted nor integrated into the marketplace yet, does not qualify the company to remain being referred to as "start-up". What it does qualify the company to be called, is a 14 year old company that to-date, has been unprofitable, unsuccessful, and failed miserably to live up to it's potential. This is not bashing Herr Klase. It's the employment of objective heuristics in decision making. I do not allow stress, cognitive load, emotions, and most importantly bias, to non -linearly affect the process. As Joe Friday used to say, "Just the facts ma'am".
Johnny, you're giving him way too much credit. By calling "Wi-Fi-Gi" an idiot, you're insulting all the idiots in the world.
>>Ouch?<< you must have sat down on a thumbtack -remember those? Please don't be lured by the sirens of new management, increased revenue, or even tiger-esque pedantic poetry. Fundamentals will shade your thinking and frequently prevent you from owning stocks that go up and/or cause you to own stocks you shouldn't. Papa's view of such things change with the winds of course, and an almost 50% and ever decreasing valuation of the stock price will at some point reflect some sense of his notion of fair value, many many points before Mr. Market reaches the same conclusion, regardless of what management does or revenue reported.
Rear-end tax selling, market makers doing their thing - who knows for sure? Not saying it's going to trade down to 0.12 this year, but that's exactly where it traded this time of the month, last year.
>>Papa, you remind me of someone from long ago.<< Really, he must have been good-looking and brilliant! I believe you can can include "Wi-Fi-Gi" along with KandyKane708 and Catfisher19 (or as I like to refer to him(them) - "Analfissure69". He(she) appears to have multiple-personality- disorder. Like to bash VPIG also, which is a stock I am heavily invested in. For some reason he must think I own CYRX, also - not quite yet.
Gee, I hope these aren't the same people you've been talking to for the last 8-10 years.
BTW, I believe its a pretty safe bet that you'll have the chance to add to your position in the .20s. Forget the fact that share price is trading lower after the company reported record revenue, and has also consistently been grossly under-performing the broader markets, but all you have to do is look at a chart of CYRX and you can't avoid staring directly at a rather nasty double-top.
There are only 3 ways to get money out of a persons wallet - give him/her something they see as having value, give him/her something evoking pity (ie, charity), or rob him/her. It always comes back to the value proposition. People get themselves into trouble (whether it's a investor or a vendor) when they impose their own values upon the counter-party.
A reason that voluntary transactions create economic value (and the capitalist system works) is because both the buyer and seller are getting value from the transaction. This is also why markets have information. And it's why it's typically a big mistake to smugly question other people's purchase/investment decisions.
This, of course, is relevant to both the company and its product, and to its stock price. Unfortunately, the two of them do not have to behave symmetrically; as the stock's present price action so aptly illustrates.
My point is not to assume that the person making the choice( whether, its the investor in the company's stock or the end user of the company's product) is a fool because it appears wrong to you.
Not bashing - just have an aversion to ignorance. Once again, the regression (or regressive) fallacy is an informal fallacy. It ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy. In other words, my simple minded friend, correlation does not imply causation,e.g., I predict VPIG is going higher because there's a full moon, and it trades higher the next ten days.
A penny for your thoughts PennyMan, which is exactly what they're worth. The myth that its cheap to build a consumer web company is about as anachronistic as the notion that revenues are required for a company to have a stratospheric valuation. Yes, changes in the American venture cap model means the cost of starting a web business is some ten percent of what it was 15 years ago, and that’s forever changed incubators, angel funding, ownership that entrepreneurs are allowed to keep, and the culture around start-ups. But it is — if anything– more expensive to build a consumer Web company than ever before. In today's world 30MM is a drop in the bucket. Facebook raised 2.33 BB before going public and Twitter 1.16BB.
So what, if Virtual Piggy has a nascent monetization strategy and no revenue. All you have to do is look at a company like Pinterest, another social media company with a niche target audience, that also has little to no revenue, but a whopping $3.88BB valuation, and you'll suddenly feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/229597
The primary challenge that the market faces here is assessing the equilibrium price in the absence of outright manipulation. There will always be chauvinistic buyers at the front end, but the back end interventions are a recent phenomenon and many buyers(and now sellers) were engaged in front-running these types of activities. This is a flow-oriented phenomenon, not a value-oriented phenomenon. My general rule is in the short-term, flow trumps fundamentals for longer than the average leveraged speculator can tolerate. God knows I feel the pain. So, the primary question, is when will the front-runners exit the market, or better yet, when will they become inextricably trapped.
Short interest was 49,300 shares when the lows of the move were made, so I seriously doubt it was short covering rally - market broke to 0.12 while previous low was 0.11- its simply a range trade i.e., they bought it against the previous low and sold it against the 50DEMA. BTW: that 11-12 cent support level corresponds with a valuation for the company of 4X revenues, which sounds about right for fair value.
Markets aren't efficient all-the-time - if they were it would be extremely difficult to make money trading them. So, the sell-off does not have to be indicative of anything, i.e., someone having better information. It may simply be a large investor throwing-in-the-towel because he needs the money. After all, this isn't a very liquid stock, and all it takes is one large investor to have an impact on share price. That being said... Yeah, they "doubled revenues", but that's not too difficult when they're so small to begin with. Its not like they are going from 25MMM to 50MM. For a company that's been around for +13 years it should give one serious doubt as to the actual size of the market for this product.
Gold and oil really getting spanked again, along with ES and da bond and CYRX.
Everybody jumping into those worthless fiat currencies, USD and EUR.
One giant, global, profit-taking spasm. Funny how when we take
profits,(except CYRX, that is) we still want to take them in cash.
gigi: I'm pretty sure tiger would be telling you EXACTLY the same thing papa's telling you.
hmmmm, the company doubles revenue, and the stock takes a 50% haircut - better hope they don't triple revenue
Relatively small short interest in the stock at 49,300 shares, so not much chance of trapping shorts down here and a getting a squeeze. Also means that there is a high probability that the last wave of selling was buyer initiated, ie.,existing longs puking their positions. The question you have to ask yourself, is who, is going to come in and buy the stock, and why would they buy the stock. Sans any news, the upside would probably be limited to 0.24 cents, which I guess wouldn't be a bad ROI if the stock got down to .06 cents. Then it would be like buying a very cheap call with no expiration...maybe.
Bulls were definitely overwhelmed in the AM. Appears to be a large retail puker going through ATDF, along with the usual MM "rat pack" suspects, CSTI,PUMA, et al. Institutional shorts who usually execute through ARCA seem to be content to simply pull liquidity, and let the market cascade lower. $2.25 is the obvious major support area from a technical standpoint, i.e., old highs, 50DEMA, and high volume node. Call it what you may, its a two way street; the sellers were more aggressive than the buyers today. Bulls need to step up to the plate, to keep SP from being stepped down to the support level.
That's quite a bit more than just a "few" assumptions. What would be their motivation for keeping sales a secret?
I'm waiting for end-of-the-month short interest data to be released. The last published figure was 826,000, and I would not be surprised if we see a substantial increase - 1MM-1.2MM. VPIG is no longer flying under-the-radar, and the increased visibility has attracted predatory shorts.
The bears see a dramatic rise in the SP of a company that has 0 revenue, and who has just completed a large placement where the offering price was done at a deep liquidity discount - $1.80 per share or ~40%. The deeper the discount, the greater the illiquidity and the greater the uncertainty.
The bulls realize that firms placing equity privately, should be associated with higher returns. These firms should be perceived as less risky because "well informed", "expert" investors would not invest in these securities unless their review of private and public information supported it.
As we speculated in previous posts, we may be in an "event window" where VPIG would be moving from the OTC to a senior exchange. Such an event would increase liquidity and send an information signal that the company's financial outlook has improved. However, until that event comes to fruition, the shorts will probably continue to lean on the stock. On the positive side, Monday is the first trading day of the month, and equities usually show positive returns at the turn-of-the-month, although this effect can be diminished in the summer months due to seasonal weakness.
That being said, I think the downside is limited, and shorting the market during an event window, is like bending over to pick up nickels in front of a steamroller.
You're welcome! Yes, apparently he isn't the only one -1,000,000 shares in 2 days. Probably didn't help that the recent raise was done at such a deep discount to prevailing SP. This probably emboldened and motivated the shorts to press even more aggressively, and when combined with profit taking, created a "waterfall" effect. But, the company did not require additional capital because it was burning through cash. A more likely scenario is that the company is shoring up its balance sheet.
Before initiating growth, businesses need to arrange for the funding necessary to meet their additional obligations. This must be done before the funds are needed. Once in trouble due to a severe cash shortage, it is frequently more difficult to attain the needed funding to continue growth. Credit still remains tight at lending institutions, and pre-rev companies don't have retained earnings, so they are forced to look elsewhere for their fastest and cheapest source of growth capital. Cash was raised internally, so there aren't any restrictive covenants, high interest rates, nor concerns about death spirals. This is how you grow a company and retain control.
Weak hands have been now cleared along with stops and value buyers will soon be stepping up to the plate; new and existing shorts will be trapped; providing the necessary catalyst to propel VPIG to new highs and beyond. Can you say "bear trap"?
No need to worry...