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.
Here's how I analyze this chart.
I use Fib numbers to delimit the expansion and/or retrace levels.
I use some moving averages too, and a tight Stochastic & a tight Bollinger, but for the chart of SPOM to be explained visually, my first pass is to use a Fib retrace approach, with the 382, the 500, the 618 & the 786 as retrace lines.
To do a Fib analysis using 386, 50, 618 & 786, Make the LOD on 11/26/12 the low end & the HOD on 1/8/13 the high end.
The 786 retrace line is what jumps out at me when I look at the chart through the lens I explain above.
786 retrace is .0083.
So here's what I think is going on.
We retraced to the 786 level, took it out during the day of 2/5/13, and then closed right at the 786 on that day, forming a hammer candle at that close. As one guy I know talks about this hammer at the 786, he'd say that its done the work that needed to get done and now we wait for the next catalyst.
Now we are drifting sideways on negligible volume, waiting.
Tiny volume at a Fib line that is one of the standard support lines of the Fib approach says to me that there are no more sellers, but likewise, buyers have no reason impelling them to park money here.
With a catalyst event, the interest level will break and I think that selling has dries up. A general rule of thumb is that, if they can't take it down, they will take it back up.
Remember, a basic money maker for MM's is the miniscule fees they get by conducting businees for clients. So, thats why they want any stock to choose a direction. They make money when somebody shows interest and either takes it down on volume or runs it up on volume.
Thats my take. I think its going to run back upside once a catalyst gets PRed, but it still could wander further down and do a full 100% retarce.... what the guy I referred to above calls "A 100% move of the move."
Peace.
Imperial Whazoo
ok.. I don't mind being lampooned. LOL
Who is NOC and why are they repeatedly discussed in conjunction with PSID?
TIA
Imperial Whazoo
New here. Whats "the divvy"? A dividend coming? If so, when did you have to be in?
Thanx
Imperial Whazoo
OK, so there it did it: two doji days in a row. And it closed on the support line.... SPOT ON.
And low volume for the day.
And it closed on an uptick.
Watching it closely.
Imperial Whazoo
I'm watching that support line I told you to draw, and I'm watching the 50% Fib retrace, which I have at 1.09.
Basically, I think that volume has dried up and if it does a tri-star (three doji's in a cluster) it will be a rare formation. I'll have to go get Nisson's book tand look it up. seldom if ever see it.
Anyway, volume is the tell. If volume dries up, there is no more selling pressure. And it has dried up.
Of course, if there is also no buying pressure, we could just drift.
We'll see.
Imperial Whazoo
Yeah, you are right. The guy you were replying to was the guy I meant that for. Sorry about that.
As to learnign new things, lets do the chart techniques called "support lines".
Pull up a daily chart using candles or bars and use your charting package's tools to draw a line from the low on 11/8/12 (.75) to the current price. It is a "support" line and it touches on these days pretty nicely.
12/28/12
1/15/13
1/30/13
I like that support line.
Fits really well, especially given the low volume on this pullback today.
Oh, and yesterday was a doji, which concerned me at open because it could have been a halfway point on a bigger pullback, but as of right now, today's candle is another diji, and two doji's in a row tend to suggest that the bottom is forming.
We'll just have to watch the close.
Again, sorry I replied to you.
Peace
Imperial Whazoo
Would you elaborate on that idea?
I mean, why would they hold back info while courting investments? They did not hold back with the PR today? And it seems to me athat investors would react to news of the train leaving the platform without them, which is what news could amount to.
You may be right, and proly are, but they did announce today and that appears to run counter to the reasoning behind your comment.
So, could you elaborate?
TIA
(and I promise I'll not get in a wrangle, whatever you say,, LOL)
Imperial Whazoo
You are right and I apologize. It just infuriates me that everything I say gets twisted and frankly, I'm just mad about it.
Ill stop. Can't make people be decent and anyway, I think its clear that I wholly support IMSC and want it to succeed.
If I were actually convinced that there would be a lot of companies choosing not to look at Implant's technology because they made decisions before, I'd have let it go, but I do not believe that nonsense.
I think they will take a fresh look and that their evaluations will generate sales.
Simple as that.
Peace.
Impaerial Whazoo
Oh really?
Here are the key points of which my point of view consists:
IMSC will sell a lot of onesy-twosy units to purchasers who, in previous years, bought the older "Qualified" technology.
There will be budgets because there will be an industry buzz about the QS-B220's features that are superior.
Getting added to the "Approved" list rather than to the "Qualified" list is not e negative because the TSA works that way. Getting on the "Approved" list puts Implant on the radar screen. It is my opinion that the TSA's warning that procureers of technology on the "Approved" list do so "at their own risk" will not prevent Implant's QS-B220 units from being considered.
Prior years of decision making will not inhibit companies from revsiting Implant's offering.
Existing orders, such as the one in the PR today, are waiting in the wings and they will get executed, chop-chop.
There will not be a wholesale replacing of technology purchased in prior years.
Here is my comment that you objected to starting our back and forth.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but he also indicated they had been losing sales to lack of TSA approval as well, so I don't think they get those sales back until they are ready to upgrade or until they have add on orders....but that's now behind them and now they are a player in the etd market with the best tech and should quickly become the industry leader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I know who is who, LOL. Its not kosher, IMHO to have planted subtle seeds of doubt and to have placed wording in my mouth that I never employed, LOL.
What you have said about Implant has been fine with me, so thanx for that, BTW.
Imperial Whazoo
And this is why I'm so fiercly arguing about the fact that both the NEED and the DEMAND for the QS-B220 make it quite important that it is now "in the club".
Only three club members: two which are, in technology terms "showing their age" (3 years old, m/l), and the new kid on the block: Implant.
And remember the superior features:
The QS-B220 features several technological breakthroughs:
No radioactive source -- In place of radioactive materials commonly used in ETD systems, Implant Sciences invented and patented a non-radioactive ion source. As such, there are no licensing requirements, special transportation rules, or safety concerns.
Automatic self-calibration -- The system is fully automatic, eliminating the need for manual calibration procedures common to systems now in use. Current systems require a skilled technician to manually initiate recalibration of the equipment.
Rapid "clear-down" -- The QS-B220 has been designed to address the industry's requirements for faster reset times. The Implant Sciences' design typically resets in seconds.
Yep I agree. And I see this manifested in the planting the seeds of doubt in the form of the idea that there is doubt about whether entities who previously bought one of the other two "Qualified" technologies will be inhibited from considering the QS-B220 and will not even look at it (because, for example, it is only on the "Approved" list).
I say that is an example of what you are referencing. Plant the subtle seeds of doubt.
I think it is a better technology and it is now "in the club", as it were. And a very exclusive club, at that.
And to prove the case I'm arguing, lets look at history & think thru the fact that history applies here.
The B29 bomber in WW 2 appeared. It did not cause all the old bombers to be discarded. To suggest such a thing is a suggestion not supported by history itself. But it was superior to the older bombers, and it did become the bomber of choice, over time.
This will happen here too. Different technology in a different war and a different time, but history applies.
What will happen is that Implant will see lots of test units moved. There will be budgets put together to, first, buy test units (and test them), and then to buy the units in earnest.
Just like the P51 Mustang's appearance in WW2 did not see the replacement IMMEDIATELY of older fighters, the superiority of the QS-B220 will not see a mass exodus from older technology, but there will be a lot of units sold, and this will lead to a lot of sizable orders in the future.
If the idea can be planted that this process is not going to be all that robust, it looks to me like doubt will have been sowed about Implant.
And bear in mind that there will be non-US buyers, like India. Remember, the CC contained the info that there are orders in the wings, waiting to be delivered.
So, it is true that sophstry exists and there are entities who would benefit if seeds of doubt can be planted in the minds of ordinary shareholders. This is just the way it is, but net/net, what has happened as regards the TSA is huge, and it will result in extrordinary rewards.
Thats what I think is the case here.
Imperial Whazoo
Tripe.
And saying I'm arguing both sides is nothing more than a false accusation that adds nothing to this discussion, IMHO.
It does give me an oppurtunity to repeatedly drive home the actual point of view I think people have an interest in getting to see. For this, thanx! LOL
:o)
As to what is actually important, see my last post, which is about the difference between the "Qualified" and "Approved" lists.
As regards this nonsense of "arguing both sides", I am not, and IMHO, your accusation is tripe, LOL.
I've only one side and I argue it only.
Here it is, once again:
There is not going to be any inhibition of consideration by companies that bought older technology, which is what you said that I originally disagreed with. You are just wrong in that view, IMHO. Simple as that.
Secondly, old technology will not get discarded, and no amount of putting that ridiculous sentiment into my mouth will establish it as my point of view. It simply is not what I ever held to be the case here.
Period.
And thirdly, there will not be a rush that has everyone who had bought in the past replacing what they bought at a sprinters pace. There will be buyers, but this allegation that I ever said there is going to be wholesale discarding of past purchases, or that this "discarding" will happen in a rush, I never said any such thing.
Period. I never held that to be the case, despite it having occured that somebody put those words into my mouth.
I never held this view at all and my actual view is that there will be buys from orders waiting in the wings and there will be lots of "onesy-twosy" test unit buys.
I could not have been more clear on any of this, and none of it is "arguing both sides of the same issue", which is what you just posted.
That is tripe.
Look, for example, at my last post, which was about the actual risk involved here. The actual risk of being on the "approved" list rather than on the "Qualified" list.
It is tripe to say I'm arguing both sides of this matter. Just check the last post I just made.
Nothing could be clearer than the stances I'm taking, and it does not matter how my points are incorrectly represented.
Just read my latest post.
No taking of two sides in that post, is there? And there never has been. No false representations of anyone's views, either.
I have no axe to grind and all I want to do is help clearly evaluate this company's new status as regards the TSA.
I want it to stop... this sophistry & all this attacking of me via misrepresentations of my point of view.
One thing all this has accomplished is this: I get to fight for truth, which I don't mind doing, and I get to show that I refuse to stoop to putting false wording into other people's mouths.
And I welcome the chance to repeatedly re-make my actual arguments, LOL.
My hope is that, by taking the time to do so, I'm helping folks actually think this thing thru.
:o)
Imperial Whazoo
Here's the deal:
The relevant document is: "TSA Air Cargo Screening Technology List (ACSTL) Version 8.4 as of 01/31/2013"
There are two categories: Qualified Technology & Approved Technology.
Implant is under "Approved Technology"
Here's the difference, taken from the TSA doc itself:
Qualified Technology
specifies equipment which has undergone a formal TSA sponsored test process and is deemed qualified for screening operations. When procuring equipment from the ACSTL, regulated parties are encouraged to select equipment from the qualified technology section.
This equipment has up to 36 months from the date when it was added to the approved technology section to successfully pass TSA's suitability based field test activities. If it is unable to pass field test activities within the prescribed 36 months, it will be removed from the Approved Technology section at the prescribed expiration date. Due to this fact, regulated parties who procure equipment from the approved technology section do so at their own risk.
The QS-B220 features several technological breakthroughs:
<1> No radioactive source -- In place of radioactive materials commonly used in ETD systems, Implant Sciences invented and patented a non-radioactive ion source. As such, there are no licensing requirements, special transportation rules, or safety concerns.
<2> Automatic self-calibration -- The system is fully automatic, eliminating the need for manual calibration procedures common to systems now in use. Current systems require a skilled technician to manually initiate recalibration of the equipment.
<3> Rapid "clear-down" -- The QS-B220 has been designed to address the industry's requirements for faster reset times. The Implant Sciences' design typically resets in seconds.
Look people, I never argued that the old technology would be discarded. I never said anything of the kind. Yet, here we go again: my actual arguments are restated to consist of wording (or ideas, for that matter), that I would never, in this universe, put forward.
Why have I had a spate of having to deal with this problem of putting wording I never used into my mouth?
An example of this is this statement made in the post I'm replying to, where it is said of me:
You seem like a minority here thinking that someone is going to throw away equipment bought last year simply because there is something better on the market.
I am making an entierly different point because I am arguing against an idea that was repeatedly made that I think is ridiculous and that has no merit at all: the argument was put out there, rather forcefully in fact, that last years purchases would inhibit sales of this newer & far better stuff.
Likewise, the appearance of Implant's newer and better solution will in no way limit the instances where buyers of prior solutions, that are now inferior solutions, will revist this issue. And there will be budget money found.
Bingo!
And remember how hard I had to fight over the point I made last week that the technology was totally unique and thus exempt from the analysis that says that entities that bought in former years would not revisit this technology now that it is TSA approved.
The rules of this game demand a revisiting of this, even if it had been overlooked previously when the TSA had yet to give it this designation.
Budgets will not be bound by prior decisions because this is without compare, worldwide.
Budget space will be no problem, regardless of prior decisions.
Demand in spades... BIGTIME!!
Imperial Whazoo
I do not think their hedge fund investor is going to bail on them this early in 2013. More likely to fund via purchase of the convertibles/warrrants/restricteds I mentioned as likely earlier.
The hedge fund relationship is there and the upcoming product orders are like low hanging fruit, ready to be plucked. Up is the direction for the quarter, I'd say, and the hedge fund guys are professionals. They know the lay of the land and the pitfalss of the BBs.
I'm sticking with my former post and saying that the support line that is upward sloping will hold nicely and the thing either breaks out above the confluence of the 20 day & the Fib 500 (1.32 in both instances), or it oscillatets betwwen the the 20 day and the 200 day, gaining strength (1.23 to 1.32).
Thats how I see it, but don't buy or sell on this call. Its what I'm watching for, not a set of buying points for me to trade.
The buy or sell will be accompanied by volume. Trade the volume in the direction of the volume.
Imperial Whazoo
Quite obviously, without news, this thing just drifts down slowly.
Any ideas on what the news next to come out is going to be?
And when it will come out?
This thing definately needs some kind of shot in the arm.
Management.... step in... step in before it gets so subsumed that it becomes a self predicting problem.
We need news. Big time.
JMHO
Imperial Whazoo
Well the 200 day held. We'll just have to see on Monday. Down day, but not a dump of shares.
The top/turn that happened on 1/22 showed 1,157,711 volume and if you subscribe to the "Bookend" theory, it painted 1,061,188 today at the other "bookend".
Did a bookended move just complete?
Hmmmm....
Also, lets use Fibs, like the MM trading desks do.
Here are the 4 primary retraces:
382: 1.39
500: 1.32
618: 1.24
786: 1.13
If it is doing an upside Gartley Butterfly, it will touch the 786 and then the setup would be a move to a Fib 1270 level. At least.
The 1270 level is 1.82.
So go look at the historical highs. Back on June 29,2012, it reached 1.84, and on 9/25, it reached 1.75
So, it may be painting out a Gartley (upleg range base, 618 leg, 382 leg, 786 leg and then 1270 leg). Gartleys are rare, though.
Anyway, the confluences are:
the Fib 500 pullback (1.32) & the 20 day MA (1.32)
and the Fib 618 (1.24) & the 200 day (1.23).
If it breaks down, I look for the 1.17 to 1.13, but breaking a 200 day is hard, especially given the 500% gain in revs.
If it doesn't break down, the longer it hovers here, the more strength that depicts in the 200 day/618 Fib confluence.
And one more analytical tool to use: a rising support line.
Take a line and stretch it across these 4 lows:
11/08/12 (.75)
12/28/12 (1.00)
01/15/13 (1.10)
01/30/13 (1.16)
A perfect fit using an upward sloping support line.
And, based on this, if it does do a Monday headfake, it will run into support using this line at 1.17, which BTW fails to break the lows of 01/29 & 01/30. Not closing below either of these will matter bigtime. They will have been said to have held.
I'd say we are about as low as she is going to go.... unless they flood the market with dumpable shares to finance things, but they will not do that, IMHO.
If they issue shares, my bet is that, given their prospects (500% revs & TSA approval), they will only do restricteds/warrants/preferreds. Nothing that will add volitile shares to the trading volume.
Oh and one more chart thingy: Look at the day of the TSA news back on 01/15/13. It was a big ass down candle. Closed at the LOD.
Look at the next day.... it took off bigtime.
So today is the day they released the 500% rev increase news. Big ass down candle, just like the reaction to the good TSA news. Good news accompanied by a professional takedown that allowed the professionals to load up on cheapies.
What say people about whether lightening will strike twice here?
If it sees a day on Monday like it did on 01/16, today let the pros in and next week will let them take it up, & make money on the takedown.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Peace.
Imperial Whazoo
Anyone know who works as their MM representative or whatever its called? I always want to watch who they are on the level 2 becasue that telegraphs where the support/resistance levels are at any given point in time.
Imperial Whazoo
Well, if you are a trader and you think its moving down, better get your stops loss in. and if you are a trader and think it will show volume to the upside at the end, place a buy or two in rather than chase.
:o)
Imperial Whazoo
So will dilution to sop up the 200 mil limit bring the price down? Or could they do it in a way where the shares do not get dumped back imto the market?
Thoughts?
Some kind of preferreds/warrant/restricted classes of shares perhaps that will not "dilute" directly but that will raise capital for growth?
Imperial Whazoo
ah, well what you do is you chart the points of conflict, as it were, and there is always a volume fingerprint associated therewith.
So far today, its been professionally moved to the 200 day and it bounced to the 20 day.
Volume coming back up exceeded that going down, so my methods derive a conclusion that its failed to take out the 200 day in a decisive manner (45% more upside than downside is pretty distinct).
So, its now, as it were, "thinking about it". The "thinking" consists of several progressively lighter attacks on the 200 day (1.23), each rejected on better upside than downside volume.
So, its basically decided to stop going down. In stopping going down, you are left with only going sideways or coming back up.
The sideways and/or up decision is being taken under "consideration" and the way it volume trades at EOD will be instructive.
Now, in actuality, I realize that it could be that I will be heard to be saying that there is a conspiritorial collaboration going on. Thats not the case.
I just have to explain my analysis some way or other, and I choose to do so by acting as though "decisions" and "thinking" and so forth are going on.
They are not.
What is going on is the uncollaborative independent decisions of a lot of people, reflected in the charts, but for explanatory purposes, its a convenient device to imbue it with human traits, like "thinking" or "deciding".
Imperial Whazoo
Well, the manufacturing capacity being adequate would assume certain levels of incoming orders. If there is a monster order (maybe driven by a terrorist act or two), then who knows. And that also applies to the issue of revisiting the technology, now that its TSA approved.
I remain of this opinion: there is no reason to argue that last year's buys inhibit consideration of technology this year. This is not document imaging software,,. where last year's buy will definitely chart the future course of a company. The rules of the road are different here than in ordinary cases.
simple as that.
Imperial Whazoo
I know you are talking about volume of sales, which will move forward bigtime from here. But lets look at volume on the chart.
I use volume to tell me where interest is.
Now most people "Invest", and the trading desks out there at the MMs all use 20 period, 50 period, and 200 periods on their charts. You can just count on this being them case.
What I do is, for multi day or multi week plays, I look to see where the 200 MA is, if for no other reason than to know what the rest of the world is doing.
So, using the 20, the 50, and the 200, the chart today did this:
20 day: 1.32
50 day: 1.27
200 day: 1:23
Now I think this thing is under professional MM attack & here is why. Put it up on a 10 period chart and look at it.
In the first 3 10 period candles, the MMs took it precicely to the 200 day.
The LOD was during the first 30 minutes.
At 9:59:18, to be precise, where they traded it for an instant, trading 4000 shares there.
Trading has dried up, for all intents and purposes, which is fairly typical of a mid-day session.
Now here's a trick to use. A trading day is 390 minutes long. So, if you try to use 20 period, 50 period, or 200 period MA on an day trading chart, you get unevenly sized delimitations.
I use only period numbers that factor into 390 evenly. 3, 5, 6 10, 13 and so on.
It works a bit like when you had a microscope in biology lab and you could click thru the lenses and change the magnification.
Use a 3 minute period and look at today's chart.
Here's what pops out.
In the first 3 minutes, they took it down on 53,318 volume (remember, I said I was going to use chart volume)
The next 3 minutes, they took it back up from 1.23 (the 200 period MA) to 1.32 (the 20 period MA).
See?
Professionally and precisely done using the normal MAs of 20 & 200.
They opened it down to the 200 day and took it on the bounce back to the 20 day.
Spot on.
The key to the thing, though, is that the bounce-back was on 77,541 volume.
Think about it.
Down on 53K and up on 77K
The bounce saw 45% mor volume.
Anyone who ever worked the floor of the CBOT can relate.... there is a shout as the traders bid it down in a rush and that is replied to immediately with a 45% louder bellow of buyers.
53 thousand yelling "Sell! Sell!!" and 77 thousand yelling "Buy! Buy!!"
Anyone want to get a lenghty dpose of this approach, go to http://www.tfnn.com and listen to Tommy O'Brien at market close every night.
Rule of thumb: if it goes down on 53K and comes back on 77K, you have seen the wrost of the price action. The buyers down here outweigh the sellers.
And this is confirmed by volume behavious at or around the 200 day every time it touched that today so far.
Every time, all day thusfar, they have taken it to 1.22 or 1.23, it has seen an immediate buying volume increase that moved price back up.
Every time.
So far, this thing has been testing and retesting the 200 day, and every test is weaker and every test has been met by a rejection of the attempt to take if further down.
Now there could be a massive bear raid.
I never call the future. I only look at what is really going on in the chart volumes, and in this case, the MMs have been showing progressively less and less strength each time they attempt to bop it down thru the 200 day.
Its like one of those red & white fishing bobbers that pops back up every time.
So, thats what it looks like from my approach to charting.
Until or unless it succeeds in punching out the 200 day, this puppy has done the take-away work and the next leg is either going to be sideways or back up.
Imperial Whazoo
Well, to quote you,
arguing over this is really not material on Implant's future
arguing over this is really not material on Implant's future
Thank you for seeing this, when you said:
You brought out a very important point, can you imagine the liability if there were some catastrophy and we were not using the best equipment available for ETD?
Again, my argument is not that they will rush out immediately.
My argument is that the former decisions to buy will not inhibit reviewing and revisiting.
And, I added a quote section to my prior post, which points out the congnitive dissonance in saying that I take the position that all of the buying will be this year.
I asserted no such "immediacy" or "this year" timeline.
I am only arguing that they will in no way be stopped from looking at Implant simply because they looked around and spent some money last year.
"This year" and "Immediately" are injected wordings.... they are not my wordings.
I take a better stance that insists that, like Implant's management team, the timeline will not be predictable, but what is of key importance is that the past inavailability (and the past purchasing) will not prevent reviewiwing the matter and it will not inhibit finding money to, at the very least, begin evaluating with limited unit purchases.
I think onesy-twosy units will abound as "testing" units in companies and governmental entities thatm made other sdecisions prior to the availability of Implant's superior technology.
I've done the best I could to explain this: Implant's solution the only solution of its kind. It has no equal. This is attested to by the stance of the TSA (re-listen to the CC.... its there).
The issue is simple: UPGRADES WILL BE NECESSARY & last year's spending will not inhibit spending on it. It will be necessary and as such, money will find its way into budgets.
The very nature of this technology sets it apart as a necessity and it is imprecise & misleading to characterize it as a mere replacement to the former solutions that were out there before.
Its a necesary upgrade and the buyers of former solutions will find the budget.
You insist that we should all view the matter of the necessity of upgrading to the needed technology in this war on terror as though it is just a decision as to whether to "replace".
If I think it might help to summarize the above points, I'm able to summarize what I've said in a manner that is not misleading, thank you very much. IMHO, it creates cognitive dissonance to suggest that decisions made to buy inferior solutions last year will not be reviewed. You insist that we all doubt there will be demand driven by the necessity of upgrading. I disagree.
"Replacement" will not impede buying because Implant's soulution is not a mere "replacement". Its an UPGRADE & a necessity.
It has no equal.
And like I pointed out, corporate executives and government officials are not going to want to be facing depositions after some disaster where they have to admit that they failed to buy the necessary upgrade because they spent money on an inferior solution in some former budget year. Thats not the way "cover your ass" decisions, especially in the War on Terror, are made.
The buyers who made decisions to go for what was available last year will be buyers of this necessary "upgrade", and they will find the money because the superiority of Implant's solution will demand that the budgets accomodate upgrading. Simple as that.
Oh and let me be clear: I never realized you would insist that all this buying would be this year. My position is not time loaded. Not "this year", as you inaccurately stated my position is.
It is exactly like they said in the CC: I can not and will not be dragged into putting a "this year" date on the decision. You imprecisely state that I take this position. I do not.
I have no more idea when the trigger will be pulled than the Implant management team does, but I know for a fact that this technology has no peer, and as such, the decision to review a proir decision to get an inferior solution will not prevent the reveiw of the buying decision, and the superiority of this solution will eventually drive a widespread buying buy both formerly interested parties and new entities who are looking for the first time.
I'm not assuming that. What I'm doing is remembering the words said in the CC.
You see, in the CC, it was said that there is no doubt that the technology Implant holds the patents to is superior to anything else out there.
Period.
There is nothing on planet Earth like it. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
I'll remind people once again: this is the "War on Terror"
War.
In War, you don't decide to NOT procure the best weapon when it shows up simply because some pencil pusher crunched the numbers last year and decided that you have to wear out the BB gun you are forced to use right now because the matter was already put before the budget committe last year.
It came out in the CC that the TSA is firmly of the opinion that there is no other technology on the face of the Earth that compares with this technology.
We will just have to agree to disagree because what you say is only applicable in circumstances less critical than this.
I think its absolutely necessary to adjust the assumption you are making that this is a "replacement".
You keep saying that the issue is one of "replacing". There is no replacement here. You can not replace a Sopwith Camel with a P38. Its not a "replacement". Simple as that.
Its an upgrade. And a necessary one at that. The only sense where this is a replacement is that the old technology is going to be deep sixed due to the superiority of the new technology. The idea is to be absolutely sure... and to compete.
There is a reason why its called a "War on Terror", not a "Capitalistic Balance Sheet Exercise in Business School Theory".
Like warfare, the rules of the road differ here.
What Implant has is not a mere replacement. Its a necessity.
Even so, its a dead issue between you and I. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
But I'm still right, LOL.
:o)
Imperial Whazoo
I took the comment about "losing sales" to actually be "losing opportunity for sales". That being the case, its not a replacement issue because the superiority of their technology trumps any arguments over replacement being an issue. The nature of the need for the best sniffer makes any talk of replacement being an issue fatuous IMHO.
I mean, if an entity has previously bought an inferior solution then they are not going to see themselves unable to better protect themselves (and the people made vulnerable as well), then they are not thinking clearly.
A better solution is available and there will be no waiting around to get these because of reasoning that the purchase of something last year makes it necessary to wait till you get to an upgrade or replacement point...
Well, that is just unsound reasoning and its not going to be any kind of obstacle, IMHO.
Imperial Whazoo
I got this out of it (together with the experience I got in 9 years in high end critical systems hardware/software sales):
!. They have had to turn away 50% of all approaches until now (TSA legitimacy now)
2. the sales cycle is not subject to a time pattern. It takes long.... sometimes, and short... sometimes.
3. the size of the orders is unpredictable.
These three factors make putting a number on sales impossible.
So, they know there is genuine demand; SUBSTANTIAL genuine demand.
They know the buyers they had previously had to turn away are very large.
They know that the TSA sees them as the very best of the type of technology there is anywhere in the world, and they know that this is the key to getting a lot of orders.
They just can not put a dollar on it or a timeline on it.
Thats what I got out of the CC.
Imperial Whazoo
I expect little downside because I think they deliberately intended to outwit the folks who typically play the short side of earnings CCs.
See, my thought is that there are always opportunists who want to jack with a small company when it hits the dates of their earnings reports on the expected day. So, assuming that these bad actors got cought flat footed and did not have the 2 weeks they expected to have to build up an illegal short position, there was little time for them to have reacted to the announcement that the CC would be today.
The general rule is "Buy the rumor, sell the news", but this is so much a rote thing that, by pulling this unexpected CC/earnings report 2 weeks early, I figure the pattern of the expected can be expected to NOT be a pattern this time.
Basicly... I calling their deliberate timing 2 weeks early as a rather smart way to trip up the typical bad actors out there.
Also, in that the early date did not allow for a "rumor build up", its rather hard to apply the "Buy the rumor" rule... in that their timing disallowed any rumor, LOL. Hence, I do not expect a sell off... you know, a "sell the news" sell off not happening.
And the simple reason? No rumor to buy.
There is news.... obviously, but the thing about the "buy the rumor" rule is that there is accumulation during the "buy the rumor" part. So, by disallowing the opportunistic bad actors their expected two weeks in which to have accumulated, there is no psoition of shares to employ in the "sell the news" part of the rule.
Hence, news without a sell.
And lastly, the chart does not look like a pivot point.
Not high & not low.
In fact, its looking to me like is going to be an "A-B-C-D" thing, and we just started the C-D leg. If thats what happens and if its a symetyrical C-D leg, then the leg should be the same size as the A-B, which means we should see 1.75 as the top end of the C-D leg.
So thats what I'm looking for over then next few days/weeks. A C-D leg reaching at leasat 1.75.
And anyway, the news was rather nice... 513% up revs? Really? Debt attributable to a one time event of issaunce of bookable options?
Not exactly negative in any way.
I say its going up.
Keeping my fingers crossed, anyway.
Imperial Whazoo
Yeah, I see a touch at the range of 1.43 to 1.49 because you can see the volume looking left in a congestion zone back in May 2012. It broke thru resistance and will seek the next level. If that coincides with any hint of news or interest shown by players who might nose around and like what they see, it will blow past 1.49. The next lavel above this is 2.00, more or less.
Thats what I see, anyway.
Imperial Whazoo
My thought too, koolmoto. I've spent far too much time today trying to figure it out. Don't see the connection.
Imperial Whazoo
Hey, In regards to your question about where the dire outlook you predicted for JBII leaves longs?
Where it leaves me is up bigtime and greatly in the green at this point.
Thought it might help ya to hear the genuine answer your question, LOL.
Imperial Whazoo
Say... it would be darn interesting if this were the case. And didn't somebody mention a PR regarding this that can be found elsewhere?
Where can this be found? Does anyone have a link?
TIA
Imperial Whazoo
Thanx. Its not it but, that said, nice graph intensive board. Mikey likey. :o)
Playing JBII right now. Check it out.
L8R
Imperial Whazoo