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.
Beautiful day to go look for escaped cons! LOL
There can be only one explanation for today's move. Ben Sharvy must have issued a buy!
LOL
So far so good, but let's hope that the big seller doesn't decide to sell into this. I'm hoping that he/she/it is done with the selling and will now let whatever stock they still have ride.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114790302
Let me rephrase that for you. Your premise is: someone else's explanation is logical, but since we don't have as-yet non-public information it must be wrong.
My proprietary yet extremely obvious indicator says that we close green tomorrow.
However, this is assuming that the big seller that I Need Help has mentioned many times does not show up again.
As long as the grown-ups allow themselves to be irritated into responding to childish teasing, the teasing will continue.
Before, the reason to respond was so that uninformed new readers would not be fooled by falsehoods. However, even the naive can see that this is just juvenile petulance, so there is no need to take it seriously and respond.
For those new readers who are interested in learning about the stock, this is an excellent article:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3270535-cellceutixs-fundamental-strength-outweighs-market-cap
Yes, that was a very informative article. I found this to be particularly interesting:
I wonder if anyone but myself sees how ludicrous and unconvincing it is to make repeated posts constantly saying the same thing in slightly different language, weeping and wailing about supposed misdeeds by a CEO, when the complainant has no knowledge of what's really gone on or is going on in the corporate offices, demands such knowledge, and yet this is someone who openly admits not having a position in this stock. Why the tremendous investment of time and effort posting the same thing constantly, if there is no personal connection to this stock?
Are we to believe that the constant repetition of complaints is pro bono? I characterize this as "ante bono" -- against the good -- because the NonShareholder's complaint has been overly discussed to the point of nausea, and is so boring in its constant parsing and repetition that it makes people not want to bother reading the board, as they have stated in posts.
Actually, I myself was using a well-known type of expression -- the "rhetorical question." I know perfectly well that many others beside myself see how ludicrous and unconvincing the constant complaining is.
This is a classic example of the fallacious argument called "Amazing Familiarity" --
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/post_reply.aspx?message_id=114769711
Same old complaints, repeated constantly. Tiresome.
I don't remember who it was, somebody awhile ago saw on Level 2 what were supposed to be 26 consecutive "separate" lots of 100 shares on the offer. LOL
One type of fallacious argument is basing a claim on a false premise.
"The CEO has a credibility problem" is one such false premise.
As I posted earlier, when I've bought more CTIX recently it's gotten filled in 100 share lots, and has taken a long time to fill -- as if anyone believes there are a whole bunch of people who want to sell 100 shares at a time of a stock trading at these low levels. And then immediately it shows the last trade as being LESS than what I just paid.
Oddly enough, I've never had that experience of being filled in 100 share lots when I was buying a low-priced stock that was moving up. Nor did the last trade immediately after my buy show as being higher than what I just paid.
So, logical fallacy of the day:
Trades filled in 100 share lots are from panicked small investors selling their whole investment.
LOL
Whoa, that cancellation clause is really something. So if they don't want to get their warrants canceled, they have to buy when the share price looks like it's going to stay above 1.50?
58nout, don't know if you were reading the board the day that scottsmith found this for us, so here it is again, a nice slideshow compendium of fallacious ways to argue:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
and there is this more "academic" one:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
And here's another that categorizes them a different way:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
Redwing, I love it -- you answered your own question in the very next sentence. First you said:
"Not sure what some are complaining about today."
And then you showed us what some are upset about:
"Stock had a good day."
LOL ! ! ! !
It appears that people are no longer willing to put up with inaccuracies here.
Good.
The amazing lack of posting on a very nice up day for the stock should tell the astute observers all they need to know.
Remember, another 10 minutes of free PM privileges. (eom)
Monolith, you said "I can't tell if he's like all other Pink CEO's" but the fact is easily shown that he is not a typical CEO. How many CEO's would put their own personal money into a company, to the tune of a million dollars, to keep it out of bankruptcy when there was no lender willing to put up money?
That single act should tell anyone that this CEO has credibility and is dedicated to making the company a success.
I can and do dispute your claim. There is no "cloudiness" on this company. It has three drugs, in three completely different areas of medicine, in multiple clinical trials. There has been NO negative data so far, and the data that we have seen so far looks promising.
True, people have tried to cast doubt on the management, for whatever reasons they may have. However the accomplishments of this company's management are spelled out in detail in the Seeking Alpha article; I hope that anyone still wondering about this will read the article.
I'm sorry if you came to the stock late and are underwater now. That, however, is not the fault of the company, but it is the fault of the big seller and of what many of us believe was the shorting of this stock. My own belief (based on the intellectual property that the company has) is that everyone who bought this stock near the highs will eventually be richly rewarded, if they just have the courage to hold the stock.
My prediction for today's action was proven correct. Proprietary indicator that everyone can figure out, was right on the nose.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114733125
Sadly it looks like that indicator may no longer provide enough data points for future predictions of daily movements.
Absolutely agree. Anyone who has been worried even momentarily by the supposed "doubts" people have about the management of this company should print out that quote and read it every time they are tempted to believe the ridiculous claims.
We knew that there was one in Oregon, but the Rochester one is new. Thanks for finding that.
Excellent chart, thanks SPM555 (eom)
I bought a little more CTIX for my IRA. I find it amusing that it took a long time for me to get filled, in 100 share lots, at 2.51, and then almost instantly a "last trade" of 2.49 was displayed. It's certainly good that there is no manipulation on this stock LOL
I don't know about the IPO. Biotech is such a crapshoot, you've got to have promising science, AND good management, to succeed. It is just so common for biotechs to have the great IPO and then tank -- I haven't done any research on it but that seems to be the common pattern. There are several small biotechs that I can think of off the top of my head that seem to have incompetent managements but good science. The really notable one was the PolyMedix disaster -- here they had a whole new class of antibiotics, the first since 1987 -- then they go bankrupt by pursuing another drug instead of developing their antibiotic. (Their shareholders' immense losses are CTIX's gain, since CTIX bought their intellectual property for a few million). AVXL easily could have gone the same route -- fortunately Dr. Missling seems to be turning this around.
There's another small biotech that has an incredibly promising treatment for brain cancer -- but their very good scientist is trying to run the company. I see disaster ahead for that one too, if they don't get better management.
I wasn't talking about market cap. I was talking about the effect of the share price going from an IPO price of 3, to 5, and 4, and then to 20 CENTS, on the people who have held the stock since then. Their brokerage accounts don't reflect the market cap, they reflect the huge loss of capital. Everyone who bought years ago and is still holding needs the stock to get back to the target price that was mentioned (4) just to get whole or close to whole.
A share price of 4 would get this stock back to where it was trading 4 years ago. Around 3 was the IPO price.
As I posted a couple of days ago, this is a very common pattern in biotechs. IPO, big excitement, oh look the science is life-saving, world-changing -- and then the stock tanks, is in the toilet for years, and eventually people who bought into it in the first year or so finally MIGHT get made whole.
And then sometimes it becomes like JAZZ or PCYC or BLUE etc and makes people rich. Not to mention actually helping people with medical conditions.
no, it didn't look like the big seller bothered to make an appearance today. Hoping he/she/it is done for awhile -- totally stupid to dump stock at these levels, especially with news coming up soon.
I have seen a pattern of 100 share trades in the past several days. Are there really 26 people each selling lots of 100 shares? If it were Google or Netflix or other pricey stocks, yeah 100 shares at a time, but a stock trading at this price? um....
anyway I think we may have seen some shorts being covered today. I consider this a failed bear raid despite the red close because of the low volume, and the times that I would see a "last trade" two cents lower than the bid. And then after the period of time in the green, suddenly the 100 share trades again to whack it down.
Resistance is futile. Resistance by bears, ultimately, I mean.
My prediction for tomorrow is green, based on my proprietary indicator that most of you can figure out easily. This assumes that the big seller won't come back. There very well may be another half-hearted takedown attempt at some point during the day, but based on today's last few weak hands capitulating or shorts covering, it shouldn't be significant.
You all realize this is just for entertainment purposes. Anyone else got one?
Today's low volume take-down was as I predicted:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114700457
I won't be able to give my prediction for tomorrow until more data is in.
This is why I posted awhile ago that I thought a possible reason for the CEO not announcing a meeting date was that then we would spend weeks with people claiming that the FDA not responding in milliseconds meant that something was wrong -- when in actuality it was just because the FDA is slow. No specific target date means less ability for moaning, wailing, and gnashing of teeth (whether genuine or just bear games).
I for one am grateful for this astute move by the CEO.
Thanks for taking the time to write those replies. It's always interesting to see other people's approaches to trading.
There are limits on what an officer of a company can reveal to someone who writes asking for information. The CEO clearly stated this himself:
BK, thanks for this information. (eom)
Thanks, that must be what I was remembering.
I agree that he looks good -- I was just startled that they didn't mention a J.D. degree, but some European countries are different about what they require. Also I vaguely remember reading about some state in the U.S. that actually did not require a law degree to practice law -- just had to pass the bar exam -- but can't remember the details on that (and it might be that the news story was because they had closed that loophole or something - it was years ago)
Also I have know Ph.D. scientists who worked for law firms in the patent department, just not as lawyers -- as consultants on the science.
I can't get that link to open, ip_man, but I'll take your word for it. I was just going on what the company put in the press release, which didn't mention a law degree. Thanks for finding that, even if I can't open it LOL
You meant that as a joke, right, since it's not even the same name, and it's a guy who hasn't finished a degree yet?