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.
What's up with the oxidation ponds? They look empty.
So on the OTC, mm’s are not required to honor the size they show, nor are they required to fill. I know, crazy...
I think they chose to do it the wrong way this time but it’s still incompetence just the same. Why they thought they could execute a share distribution under the radar on two exchanges is beyond me.
One can hope. By my read a close above .45 would be the first truly positive technical development in 3 1/2 years. I’m not taking it for granted but am hoping for a strong close today or tomorrow.
I think the chart is starting to look very interesting but I would add that we need to take out .45 first.
The ability this stock to make a short term move, retrace and then take out the recent high has been basically zero for several years. Going from memory I think it’s only happened once. So you want to see that happen here at .45.
Here is a very simple buy/sell strategy from just moving average crossovers and oscillator divergences. You want to use a set of rules that don’t trigger a bunch of false buy signals and that can be verified through backtesting. It works this way:
1. The stock must cross the 13-day EMA
2. The 13-day EMA must cross the 50-day EMA
3. The oscillators must show a positive divergence from price through at least one month of prior trading.
Buy signals are shown in the orange circles. As you can see below, this has only yielded 3 buys in the last 4 1/2 years! All three buy signals were also very close to bottoms which isn’t normal but I’ll take it. The first two preceded SIAF’s two largest moves. So it has a very, very good track record with this stock.
What the chart says is open to interpretation. What it tells me is that there are some positive undercurrents to this stock that aren't obvious by eyeballing the chart. It also tells me that the odds of future price appreciation have become more and more probable even in the face of dilution. But how much? That's for other people. I'm not going to guess.
Sure. And in the sentence prior to that you said this:
“Bull flags are most commonly seen when large institutional investors are acquiring stakes within the company.”
Which is fiction.
Bull/bear flags have nothing to do with institutional trading. I think that’s fiction. But the chart formation is flag-ish and if it closes over .45, it is bullish. That part is true.
There are some other bullish things going on in wider timeframes. Will post a chart tomorrow.
I understand how it works. And I can explain it better than you.
Daily’s, weeklies, monthlies. You should be looking at all of them. But don’t try to predict daily price movement and then say that daily indicators don’t matter.
For the record, I’m long here.
Uh, no. That’s not correct. We’ve been in a downtrend for years. On the 14 day RSI, right now it’s overbought.
By definition.
I’m not so sure a 14 day RSI has much predictive value applied to weekly or monthly charts. When you change the period, you have to change the indicators to see what works. Some indicators don’t translate very well between periods ether.
I wouldn’t say it’s nothing. But it’s not everything either.
When it gets as high as it is you can typically expect a stock to labor a little more. It doesn’t mean that it stops being overbought or that the stock crashes.
It absolutely can keep moving up even when it's overbought and it can do so for a long time. But when you look at the 2014 move for example, about 1/3 of the trading days were actually red. So it works off some of the overbought condition as it moves up.
Straight up from here it will also be very overbought over .50. Stocks can always get more overbought, I suppose but there will be some headwinds moving on from here. RSI over 80 already.
I think it makes more sense for CA to be owned by TRW. A listed Chinese company licensing technology from an American penny stock with a bunch of skeletons in its closet will get penalized down the road with a lower PE. Industry leaders own their own technology. And CA’s R&D is already on TRW’s own property anyway. On multiple levels this just doesn’t compute. It seems like an unnecessarily complicated arrangement, which I guess is par for the course with SIAF.
Sell CA to TRW. Even if it needs to be sold relatively cheap to make it work.
It’s the elevation that counts more than the distance. I’ve lived through three major hurricanes and the storm surge is always what hurt the most - and I lived several miles inland. There was a forth hurricane that dumped a ton of rain in my area but because the eye was several hundred miles away, the sea level actually went DOWN because the hurricane’s center was sucking up all the water. These aren’t phenomena that you can easily eyeball.
Why wouldn’t you be concerned about flooding? That’s my primary concern. For most hurricanes, most property damage comes from the storm surge.
Yes. I think so too. A lot of the hanky panky we see would be harder to pull off if we had a more competitive bid on the OTC or if Merkur was strong enough to lead. But neither is true. C’est la vie.
IMO this ends when they spin every last cent of value to actual exchanges instead of this backwater excuse of a market.
Thing is this pattern isn’t new. If it was a one time event I might say that the seller just doesn’t have time to get the best price. But the pattern of dumpage always seems to come after a run up when bid support is weakest or non-existent. Makes me think this isn’t entirely new shares but a short position that is continually being rolled out. Whoever it is, they know the psychology of the retail investors and are playing them *perfectly*. They’re good at it. They know the stock well. They’re patient. I dunno, sounds like a lender to me but that’s just my opinion.
Yeah but look at where the buying has been coming from. It’s mostly the same cast of bad actors that got us here to begin with. VERT is boxing the spread right now and has been repeatedly for the last few days. Why are they still here and what does that say?
Not saying it won’t go up. We were very oversold so it could. But considering where the volume is coming from, how much of this price action can you really trust?
Correct. No collateral shares sold. But to be clear, in my view this stock is being abused in more than one way. I think a repurchasing agreement of the collateral shares with a third party explains a large chunk of what we've seen in the last half of 2017 but not everything. And certainly not all the crazy things I've seen since I started following this stock in 2014.
Yes. But the share price damage to SIAF may not be completely undone because the lender is probably not taking out one massive position that has to be covered all at once. But yes, under this scenario if the loans are paid off, the collateral will be returned and the lender will have already made the money he wanted to because the positions were continually rolled out and profits were taken all the way down.
The point is too theoretical to argue. In theory, of course if the lender didn't think the money would be returned they would sell the collateral shares. Of course they would. After all, that's what it's for. (duh!)
But they would have to have a reason to believe that and it would have to be within a risk informed decision framework. Otherwise the portfolio manager of the lending company in question would get instantly fired the second one of these decisions went against him. When the company is making their quarterly payments and making provisions to pay the balance early, it doesn't seem like a remotely reasonable risk.
I think there's another possibility here, with the collateral shares still the main problem. I was staring at the chart yesterday looking at the volume patterns and the price action. It really looks like a position is getting rolled out. The trading has a "lather, rinse, repeat" quality to it. It occurred to me that it looks a lot like a repo agreement that's executed with bonds. So I wondered whether there were similar financial instruments for doing this for equities? According to Google, yes there are. And whether this can be done with OTC companies. Yes, it can.
It’s a complicated subject because there isn’t much information that articulates how it actually works. Almost everything I’ve read comes from lenders themselves and gives a sanitized version that effectively says things like “securities lending mitigates risk” or “promotes market liquidity”. But with regard to small caps, I think this is just another game for them to push the limits of the law. The point is that short term lending of collateral is a real and common operation.
http://www.theotcspace.com/sites/default/files/2011/11/003-the-repo-market.pdf
The way I understand it, it would work something like this: SIAF gets a US loan at a ridiculous rate. Sounds too good to be true? Probably. Those collateral shares are sold out and bought back on regular basis by the lender (sometimes daily) to a collateral management firm in exchange for cash. The collateral management firm collects a fee to hold the collateral for a short duration presenting minimal risk. The lender then turns around and uses the cash received for collateral to short SIAF. Under Frank Dodd they are not permitted to engage in proprietary trading but there’s nothing stopping them from conducting "MM activities". We all know hedge funds do it and presumably, lenders operate with the same rules. They cover their position and buy collateral back from the collateral management firm the next day or next week and pocket the difference in the stock price minus the collateral management fee. Lather, rinse repeat until the collateral is returned to the company.
Except that SIAF is making their quarterly payments. Further, this isn't what dilution looks like when there's outright sales. When you sell for profit, you sell into strength. Here we see a seller that sells into weakness. When there's buying, they actually go away.
Have you given more thought to how Loan 1 was executed at only 3.5% interest or Loan 2 at 5%? I'm now convinced this is a big problem that is being glossed over. The only explanation I've seen is that collateral shares are being sold but I don't think that theory matches up with the trading we've seen. I also don't think it makes any sense from the lender's point of view.
I’m more concerned about the boundaries around who is responsible for what. There’s a lack of organizational clarity here. But perhaps I’m missing something.
Why are these partnerships going through SIAF and not Triway?
One of the trading hallmarks during the entire 2 1/2 year downtrend has been that, no matter how oversold or how much volume comes in, there’s never any follow through volume. The ability to sustain a competitive bid is completely missing.
Are you using desktop or mobile? I was watching NITE on the bid. No ARCA on my mobile screen.
I haven’t seen them on Ameritrade for quite some time. Haven’t been tracking it but I know they haven’t been active in the last few weeks at least.
Understood. But that’s an arbitrary point because it’s not a divergence (or anything). If you backtest that observation you’ll find it has zero predictive value.
Divergences in general are fairly common. You can find them pretty easily just poking through charts. But they won’t make you rich by themselves. They’re most predictive when paired up with other TA signals.
Yeah. I think this is an interesting place to buy. If you’re wrong then you have a logical place to stop out. The cost of being wrong isn’t that high here.
The video link shows a bullish divergence. You draw the lines by connecting lows or highs in a specific time frame. The video got it right but that’s not what you did. Connecting a previous low with today’s closing price isn’t anything. It’s just a random line.
The trend lines you’re drawing aren’t valid. There isn’t any bullish divergence there. Connecting a previous low to today’s close is basically just an arbitrary line.
We’re beginning to get deeply oversold and on that basis we might get a short term reversal. But there isn’t any underlying strength in the charts.
They are acting "delta neutral" right now which is not unusual. Just unusual for this stock. Some accumulation since last Friday which is probably related.
They have done business with the CP Group before. I believe they are one of Tri-Way's broodstock suppliers but I forget which species.
I know a lot of these giant SE Asian exporters have been under pressure to increase the traceability of their shrimp for both environmental and consumer rights issues - at least in the US. So there could be a symbiotic relationship here that goes beyond broodstock supply.
Well literally speaking they don't know anyone's number because anyone can use a different number or change their caller identification number. That's easy. But more to my point, calling in and picking a fight doesn't "hold their feet to the fire", it doesn't advance your own agenda and it's not constructive.
The value proposition is a complicated subject. It's really not a marketing issue or related to the quality of content in the conference calls even though that's the easy answer people want to believe.
There isn't one single thing the company can do to raise the share price to fair valuation, there's no big red button to push. It's more like a bucket of interconnected things.
Now thematically speaking, they need to create a better investment environment. They need to address business risks and a consistent track record so that forecasting isn't
a total crap shoot and analysts aren't afraid of it. And they need to get off the OTC to attract a different class of investors. Oh, and they need a truck load of money. Sorry to tell you that this will take time.
Do you remember how the last unscripted call went? Do you remember Joe's exchange with Dan? That was ugly and unprofessional. I can't believe you would want a redux of that.
On the Q1 call they said that the Mega Farm's future was still APRAS. ODRAS is an interim solution for that parcel. A really good interim solution but not a long term change of plans.