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.
Reader for months - first post here.
I have been involved as a stockholder in more sure thing medical start ups than I care to admit. In almost every case the sure thing became a long shot... often worse. TITXF has some reputable people on board and Robotics is a winner - not much doubt about that - but not for everybody and not for those who arrive too late to the party and he guest list appears to be filling up.
The scenario that we're watching now is all too familiar: Long periods of silence. Private conversations assuring stockholders that everything is on target but very few public statements. Testimonials about the quality of the product. FDA this / FDA that. Last minute changes/delays/improvements. Resets. And always a forum with someone pumping the company, the stock, the product, management... buy on the dip, keep the faith, long and strong, and so on. All as the stock is skidding. In these respects Titan is too eerily similar to other costly investments.
What am I missing?
GLD "seeks to replicate the performance, net of expenses, of the price of gold bullion."
9/19/2013 Gold is up 4.71%; GLD is up 0.18%
Depends I guess on the meaning of "replicate".
What happened here?
No posts in 4 days... did I miss the evacuation?
FAZ bills its goal as: " 300% of the inverse (or opposite) of the performance of the Russell 1000 Financial Index" which today at 2PM is UP 0.30% while FAZ is DOWN 1.90%. My my calculation that is an inverse ratio of 6.33%. I am not an avid follower of the Russell index but each time I've checked FAZ exceeds its 3X goal when the markets go up rarely if ever exceeds 3X when markets go down. Am I missing something or is this ETF over-promising and under-delivering?
My understanding of FAZ is that its objective is 3x inverse the market. That has certainly not been the case lately. Today, for instance, FAZ has lost more than 15 times the DOW gain. It's one thing to try and predict when this unfounded and ridiculous bull market will stop running... it is quite another when a fund such as this fails so miserably to achieve its stated goal. I'd like an explanation of the second part.
That threshold thing. Zero Volume. And No one has anything to say?
No new postings here in 48 hours?!?! Only two on Yahoo board. How unusual is that?
Dean had the nerve to face his accusers in yesterday's conference call... problem is... none of his accusers had the nerve to show up and face him. Might have been interesting dontcha think?
Today's concall was disappointing and uninspiring on both sides. Dean acknowledged the obvious lack of funds but then went on to say the same old things he's been saying for years now. Personally, I was hoping Dean was going to announce the appointment of a new CEO.
I was quite disappointed in the softball questions that were asked. Me, I'm just a guy taking a longshot... not qualified to go toe-to-toe with a CEO; but many of you here act like you know all there is to know so I'm wondering where in the hell were you on today's call? That was probably the last opportunity to ask these tough questions... and no one did. Whyzat?
Gotta give Dean credit for putting himself out there but I must say I found it quite disconcerting that a CEO who is on the brink of seeing his dream and his company die seemed to have no familiarity whatsoever with options in the Canada market which implies that he hasn't investigated any of the many other less restrictive options... non-medical use, other foreign markets... which could generate cashflow to finish the FDA app.
According to Dean the only remaining hurdle is the "clinical test" and yet, he hasn't even got a test site lined up? Also, have his "10 or 12" employees been doing? Who are the "around 4" consultants and what the hell have they been doing for 7 months? How much of the $800K goes towards Dean's salary? Why would anyone pour money into this company? Why did he just today agree to put up a video demo when we've been asking for it for years?
Dean sounded nervous and didn't say or do anything to inspire confidence. Neither did you people.
Your reasoning makes sense but... such a device has to (A) Work; (B) Be submitted to FDA; (C) Be approved by FDA; and (D) Get to market.
These may all happen... someday... but for now they all seem to be stumbling blocks for IMGG.
CLRH was a scam (Charles Payne) built on top of a scam started by the eco-terrorists in government (during the Bush years, calm down). The curly bulbs were mandated by the Gov... How could it fail? Turned out CLRH basically didn't exist. Charles Payne new this when he touted it... and really should be put in jail. Then O'bama decided to let Phillips ($50 light bulbs) squeeze what's left out of this non-existent industry (Wonder what stake W.Buffett has in Phillips btw). Anyway I fell for it and lost a bunch. Live and learn: When Government gets in bed with Industry... only the Crony's win. (See: Healthcare, GM Bailout, Wall Street Bailout, Solyndra, et al)
Better luck next time.
Why is this stock still listed?
I don't follow Cano or this board much but... I find it interesting the the company's founder, Mr. Jeff Johnson, seems to have done pretty well for himself since bankrupting Cano. Funny how that works ey?
Isn't this pretty much the way all public companies work?... Start with a small number of major investors... attract smaller investors... and so on?
So... if the SEC has not stated that that "do not have a case against someone" that proves that they do have a case?
Totally agree with you Don.
Please don't stop sharing your opinions.
Perfect!
Hear! Hear!
Not to single you out, A.T., but your opinion about Janes has been clearly stated hundreds of times. For the past several months, that's pretty much all that's on this board. What is the point of saying the same thing over and over and over again?
This may be the "smart" move but it seems to me that when a public company files a patent, builds a product and submits that product for FDA approval, that's kindof like saying "my product works".
So why all the mystery?
People can be forgiven at this point for concluding that the machine doesn't work.
Has anyone presented a reason for not showing the 3D functionality? We were told that this could not be done while the app was pending. Well the app is dead for now at least, so what possible reason could Dean have for not showing off his work?
Grasping for straws here.
Dear Mr. Gore,
Incandescent bulbs usually contain an INERT gas called Argon, which is not poisonous.
Whereas GREEN bulbs, according to LiveScience.com and many other sites do contain poisonous mercury:
"Highly efficient fluorescent light bulbs are widely touted as environmentally friendly, but they have created a recycling headache for the EPA and local governments. More often than not, their toxic ingredients simply end up in landfills, where the chemicals can leach into soil and water and poison fish and other wildlife.
The bulbs contain mercury and should not be tossed in the trash like regular light bulbs.
“They’re very efficient, but once they’re used up they become a ticking toxic time bomb," said Leonard Robinson, chief deputy director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. "They need to be captured and recycled."
Bought in this morning at 2.39 thinking I'd add more if it held there today... No DD, just a little logic. Little did I know it was a runaway train. Up to fast now to buy much more... so I just sit on my stop and enjoy the ride while it lasts. Finally I get to benefit from a bailout. Go Ireland!
I'm no due diligence specialist... most everything I say is opinion... but:
1. Having a product does not a company make.
2. I would venture to guess that CLRH spikes in the past two years have closely coincided with direct mail promotions by Courtney Smith (known scammer) and others.
3. The whole environmental lightbulb industry is based on a false AlGore premise. The bulbs are not environmental. A scam based on a scam (like ethanol).
4. It is quite likely that the "clean" bulb mandate will be reversed so the window for CLRH is closing fast whether or not the company is legit.
5. Maybe it's a successful scam, maybe just an unsuccessful business venture... the numbers offer no other options.
On what do you base your continued optimism?
IMO the only chance this "stock/scam/scheme" has of coming back is when they lay another row under the pyramid.
93,850,744 suckers riding this dog and I'm one of em.
P T Barnum and Courtney Smith were right.
Ain't that the truth!
For the most part this board has become more interested in fantasizing (good and bad) and Dean-bashing than in dealing with reality. I said the same yesterday and my post was deleted.
Great kudos to you, Madtig, for sticking to charts and facts and leaving emotion out of it.
How does this post (ie: NEWS) go unnoticed on this board for 5+ hours? It seems to me that the re-opening of this investigation of FDA approval process virtually guarantees that approval of DVIS or any radiation-emitting device is far, far away.
What Madtig says is right. No one here knows what is going on between Dean and FDA. No one here knows when or even if approval will come.
However... in the news today it was reported that the FDA has finally settled with the famous and extremely important "Ben & Jerry's ice cream labeling issue". That should free up some FDA resources to focus on little things like medical devices, drugs, etc. Everyone adjust your predictions accordingly.
This is SOME pull-back. We've given back 80% of today's gains so far, proving that this stock (like most of the comments on this board) is emotion-based. Tig keeps emotions out of it and is right more often than not. I'm not that smart and didn't pull the trigger because I was afraid the price would continue upwards.
CLRH = SCAM / supporting links
http://www.timothysykes.com/2009/11/the-penny-stock-scam-connected-to-honey-baked-hams-seriously/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TimothySykes-StockTraderAuthorEntrepreneur+%28TIM+-+TimothySykes.com%29&utm_content=FaceBook
http://www.timothysykes.com/2010/04/courtney-smith-promotes-a-ups-box-based-company-is-to-blame-for-this-stock-collapse/
CLRH stock is rolling... Downhill!
Whether or not they have a product, this company is setup as a stock scam. It has been promoted via a big slick mailer by the notorious Courtney Smith. It's headquartered at a UPS mail-drop store. This turnip has no more blood.
If there really is a product, it may surface someday under a "real" company's banner... The product may be great but the stock is a dog and a loser.
I share your pain, but not your hope. I bought at .22 without doing my DD... a hunch play. My CLRH holdings are worth 10% what I paid. I'm holding what little is left on the off chance that Smith will find another wave of suckers like me. But realistically, I'm chalking it up as yet another "learning experience". Move on.
Pennies are risky, everyone knows that but this stock was - and is - a ripoff. CLRH is one of those "live and learn" scams. I've lost 90% on this dog and am holding on my last 10% in the event that the scam-artist behind this company sends out another mailer and finds a few more suckers to pull into this hole.
I have no argument with your position and, in fact, share much of the frustration... Investors can demand "proof" but, for whatever reason, we are not going to get this specific proof until acceptance/rejection by the FDA, at which point it will be redundant. One side or the other will be able to say "I told you so". Meanwhile... x.
Not singling you out particularly A.T. But Dean is obviously aware of the great desire (by some) to see the actual 3D image in real time. He is even more obviously NOT going to provide those images - for whatever reason.
He has assured the investors that the device works as billed. The argument has become: "I believe him" > "I don't" and only time will resolve that.
Would it be unreasonable to ask those who are participating in this truly endless and repetitive conversation to agree to disagree? Thereby freeing up 50% of the space on this board as well as the time spent reading this irreconcilable "conversation.
Thanks Big.
Generic or not, I wouldn't mind a little information from the horse's mouth (for a change).
I would characterize myself as a lazy stock player as opposed to a true investor - especially when it comes to the pennies. I do very little DD; I don't email CEO's; I don't chart. Sometimes I play hunches and I hope for the best. And because of my less than serious approach to investing, I often get exactly what I deserve. C'est la vie.
I own a little over 100,000 shares of IMGG at avg price of 58. I began reading this board when IMGG started to behave so contrary to what (my) logic would dictate - shortly before April's version of "final" submission. I was hoping to gain from the insight of others more serious and knowledgable than I. On the rare occasion, I have; but more often than not, this board seems to be a place for personalities to clash, bashers to bash and be bashed, and for the faithful to express their unfounded but unshakeable belief in Dean Janes.
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/PremarketSubmissions/PremarketNotification510k/ucm070201.htm
The above link is the location of the 510(k) Status Program descripton which says in part that "...Submitters may request information on their 510(k) review status 90 days after the initial log-in date of the 510(k). Thereafter, the submitter may request status reports every 30 days following the initial status request. To obtain a 510(k) status report, the submitter should complete the status request form, FDA 3541, and fax it to the CDRH office identified on the form. Within three working days after a status request is received, CDRH will send the submitter a fax that includes:
* The ODE or OIVD division or branch to which the 510(k) is assigned;
* The last action, and date of action, that ODE or OIVD has taken regarding the 510(k);
* The position of the 510(k) in the reviewer's queue; and
* The average review time for the division or branch."
I don't read every post and I don't follow particular posters so I intend no offense to you, BigO. I don't think that my knowing why we haven't (or can't) be kept informed to this degree will change the end result of my investment in IMGG. I am still hoping for the best. But I find it interesting considering the months and months of nothing but mystery and non-information regarding the application, that we know so little about the status of our application.
Even this tiny bit of research and curiosity has jeopardized my claim as the world's laziest investor so I will leave it to someone more ambitious/serious to make the call.
My original post was the "rules" of obtaining status reports as I read them on the FDA. I was not asking to have them changed, I was asking why, if the information was available to Dean regarding the status of his application, he could not publicize that information. It is possible that this is not permitted, but it is also not prohibited in the section I was reading.
We are getting no concrete information regarding the application, while Dean is, if he asks for it. I just thought someone might have insight beyond the overused mantra of the "FDA is the FDA" may not be entirely true if my original quote is accurate.
Just a simple question. Sorry to distract from the predictions and the various arguments over the existence of the machine itself.
Weak answer. I disagree that what is not specifically "allowed" is prohibited. Not out of the question for our Government, but that policy would make for some very, very long rules documents.
My point was that, according to the FDA quote, IMGG knows, or could know, exactly where they stand with the FDA in any 30 day period. Why don't we?
See below from the FDA website which seems to say the the submitter is entitled to ask for and receive monthly status updates. If that is true then all of this speculation is really not necessary. I don't see anything prohibiting the publication of these updates. so why aren't they? I'm certainly no expert but if one wanted to inform one's shareholders and the public, wouldn't publishing the monthly status report be the simplest way? Or is speculation what Dean wants?
510(k) Status Program
Submitters may request information on their 510(k) review status 90 days after the initial log-in date of the 510(k). Thereafter, the submitter may request status reports every 30 days following the initial status request. To obtain a 510(k) status report, the submitter should complete the status request form, FDA 3541, and fax it to the CDRH office identified on the form. Within three working days after a status request is received, CDRH will send the submitter a fax that includes:
* The ODE or OIVD division or branch to which the 510(k) is assigned;
* The last action, and date of action, that ODE or OIVD has taken regarding the 510(k);
* The position of the 510(k) in the reviewer's queue; and
* The average review time for the division or branch