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.
dayla re SLJB:
How do you know this? What is your source?
Thanks.
Steve
re Uranium:
Stock in Uranium Participation Corporation is up about 15% in the past month, and now trades at a 35% premium to the net asset value (UxC spot price derived) of the metal held. The May 2007 warrants are up 30% in the same period. Both the stock and the warrants are closing in on 52-week highs:
http://www.uraniumparticipation.com/
It seems to me that this reflects widespread market sentiment that the spot price for uranium is heading significantly higher, and it is possible that uranium stocks as a group may be ready for the next leg up.
Steve
re Uranium:
After pausing for 3 weeks, the spot price of uranium gained another $.75 during the past week and is now at $48.00/lb.
After correcting with all of the uranium stocks, the warrants I own in Uranium Participation Corporation have recently begun to climb, and CCJ has closed above $40/share for 2 consecutive days. I am lousy at calling these things, but perhaps it is time for the next leg up. It will be interesting to see Len's index at the end of this week.
Steve
timmage re TCLL:
I bought the stock initially because of a post from you. Then loaded up on the stock after Q1 report.
Thanks again for introducing the board (and me) to this stock.
Steve
And income from operations is up about 43% over Q1. Monday should be a good day.
TCLL:
Most exciting part of these results is that income from operations in Q2 is up about 43% over Q1 -- from $2,071,393 to $2,974,034. It is beginning to look like the company will do close to $.10/share for the year on $1.5 billion+ in revenues. Not bad for a company with a market cap of $30 million, that closed today at $.30/share.
Looking forward to Monday. I have a feeling that I will be glad I held this one through earnings.
Steve
stanu78 re TCLL:
Nope.
This is confirmation that Q1 was not a fluke.
IMO easy double from here, $1/sh in the next 12 months.
Steve
MikeS97707 re TCLL:
Although only an Honorary Stock Picker, I doubled down on TCLL as soon as I had the chance.
And I have done the same in my real portfolio. ("Fools rush in, etc.") For me the tough decision will be whether to take some profits if the stock gets to $.35 or so before earnings are announced.
Steve
rrufff:
I have been one of those with doubts about the story from time to time. You have to admit, it does have its exotic/improbable aspects.
But the paper trail now is pretty compelling. Although Sulja is in Canada, and there may be jurisdictional issues, if this is a scam I have to believe someone is going to jail. I have no idea what the future will bring, or how good this will really turn out to be, but at this point the risk/reward ratio is mighty compelling.
Thanks again for posting about this stock, and for providing needed perspective on the pinksheet world for those of us who don't spend as much time there.
Steve
TCLL:
Volume today is about 650,00 shares -- according to Schwab, 13 times the average daily volume over the past 10 days. I have a feeling that there is good news on the way -- good earnings report, and perhaps more.
Steve
allmanchase re SLJB.pk, formerly LFWK.pk:
I hope you are right.
I followed rrufff into this stock in March -- purchased all shares at $.035. So the gains for me to this point are about 185%
This story is so improbable that it just might be true. Hell, even if it is only 10% true, the stock should go to $1.00. But then there is that nagging voice: "If it sounds too good to be true, . . . ."
Anyway, it makes the rest of my stocks seem downright boring. A press release every other day, alluding to $millions or $100s of millions (or is it $billions?) of Dubai money pouring into this pinksheet company. And today, we wake up to the news that Ahmed Khalil Al-Muslmani is going to buy up 25% of the company on the open market. I've got a sell order in -- good until cancelled -- at $2.00 per share. I hope Ahmed or whoever takes us there.
Steve
Stockmann re IMMG:
If this is a slight pullback, I'd hate to be around when the stock takes a real hit. LOL
Seriously, this one is a real roller coaster ride.
Steve
SLJB.pk:
The story continues . . .
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060808/0151824.html
Don't know what to make of this company.
Steve
TCLL:
Encouraging post from Joeiniowa on TCLL message board re possibility of U.S. partner:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12493880
Steve
SLJB.pk:
Unaudited financials posted after close yesterday at:
http://www.suljabros.com/
Profit taking yesterday from $.13 to $.10. Could be an excellent entry point if it does not gap up this morning. If you can believe 10% of what you read in PRs, this thing is going to be huge.
Thanks again to rrufff.
Steve
re Uranium:
CCJ reported Q2 earnings today, CDN$.40 vs CDN$.09 in the year ago quarter:
http://www.cameco.com/media_gateway/news_releases/2006/news_release.php?id=151
Steve
LFWK:
Either this is going to be the hottest stock of the year, or these guys have the biggest lawsuit imaginable on their hands:
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060725/0147335.html
I have had serious doubts from time to time, but it is beginning to look like this company is for real.
Whatever the outcome, thanks to rrufff for posting about it.
Steve
re Uranium:
According to those who have access to Ux Weekly, after treading water for 3 weeks the spot price for uranium has jumped this week from $45.50/lb to $47.25/lb. This number will be shown on the UxC website after today's close.
Steve
OT: Jim Dines
Jim Dines on uranium, precious metals, and politics:
http://www.streetiq.com/dir/MVTVBOB.shtml#
Scroll down and click on listen now.
Steve
re Uranium:
Uranium Fund is launched in the UK:
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=21509
Steve
S X R . T O :
I own quite a bit of this stock. I took advantage of the recent pullback in uranium stocks to load up about a month ago, and think it is one of the better uranium plays.
But does it qualify for mention on this board?
Steve
stanu78 re HOM:
Yes, it is the standard response, and the only one available to the company. But class actions almost always settle, after much is spent on attorneys fees. The relevant question is always whether the tab to defend and then settle is covered by insurance or not. The only reason for my comment is that this litigation appears to have enough horsepower that it will probably be around for a while, and the ultimate settlement will probably be for more than nuisance value. It is my consistent policy to sell stock in these small companies whenever this kind of thing happens. At best the litigation is a huge distraction that can cause a small company to lose focus. Here, even if there is insurance, it will be interesting to see if the insiders are provided a defense by the insurers. I gather they are important players in the company, and it is conceivable that the SEC is looking at the trades.
But hey, if HOM does have good insurance, and if earnings are good this quarter, it is certainly possible that the stock can power higher. Personally, I would not stick around to find out.
Steve
SSKILLZ1:
If I were in the contest, today I would sell ACSEF and double down on TCLL.
Thanks for keeping track of the Honorary Stock Pickers.
Steve
HOM class action litigation:
I have no position in HOM at the present time. Last year I bought quite a few shares at around $1.55 and sold after about a month at $2.40. So I missed most of the great ride up.
But I have followed the recent posts about the Stocklemon attack and the company's response and took a minute this morning to read the class action complaint. FWIW I do not agree at all with Navallier's assessment that the litigation is "without merit." Whether or not the litigation turns out to be a "non-event" in the life of the company depends entirely upon the adequacy of the company's insurance coverage.
Steve
rrufff:
My guess is that in this collaboration the two companies have a pretty firm understanding about how the money is to be handled, and that they probably know today what the approximate allocation will be. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the contract between them is a part of what must be submitted to the government in connection with the grant. As you suggest, there are a lot of reasons why the companies might not want their business arrangement to be public knowledge, and my assumption is that the amount to be allocated to HMSG is not big enough -- material enough -- to create a pressure to disclose it. The PR says that FED-COMM is the recipient of the grant; FED-COMM is not a public company, and therefore has even less need/desire for visibility in its business operations.
Still, this little company is beginning to look like the real deal. Learned of this company through one of your posts, and am glad I did. Bought a little more today.
Thanks much.
Steve
re Uranium:
After treading water for a week, the spot price for uranium is up another $.50/lb to $45.50. The information will be available to the public on the UxC website after the markets close today.
At this pace, it appears that $50/lb will be reached around Labor Day.
Steve
shmolton re TCLL:
My post must be misleading. I think the profit -- or something close -- will be repeated. The company's last PR:
"Andre Salt, Tricell's CEO and Chairman of the Board, stated, 'We are very encouraged with our results through the first three months of 2006, and are optimistic we will continue our level of operations through 2006, and we look forward to building on our base of operations in 2007. We are continuing to move forward with our plans to acquire N2J.'"
But "optimism" falls short of guidance, and I would be the first to concede that I don't relate very well to the business the company is in. I don't even own a cell phone and dislike them. While I don't know of any reason why the company's numbers will not continue to look good, I don't have much feel for the market. So I am only comfortable saying that this level of revenue and profits seems to me more likely than not to be repeated.
Sorry if I sounded doubtful about the company. Among Value Microcaps it is the largest single holding I have.
Steve
shmolton re TCLL:
I think the $.02 in operating earnings for Q1 is more likely than not to be repeated in Q2, and, if it is, that the stock is an easy double or better from here. Right now the stock is priced as if Q1 is a one time event, and the company is breaking even. Makes no sense to me. If I didn't have so much already, I would be buying more at these prices.
The company is not long on PRs, which is fine with me. But it may take a second profitable quarter for the stock to get the attention it needs to go higher.
Steve
shmolton re TCLL:
I own a ton of it.
Steve
Robsct:
With today's press release, I would no longer be "surprised to learn that there are contracts in place now that the company knows will result in $6 million in revenues for 2006." ! Very good news indeed. Thanks to Creede and others who have been so vigilant in pursuing information about the company and its prospects.
I have been burned in other stocks where management gives rosy projections over the phone. Nice to know that my cynicism was misplaced here.
Steve
re Uranium:
Well, the spot price is up another $1/lb. this week, and CCJ is down 6% in the early going this morning.
Obviously, I am clueless here . . . .
Steve
rrufff re LBWR:
The news about April revenues is a lot less "disturbing" now that it has been corrected Kidding aside, for me at least the PR today is comforting. As corrected, April is up 49% year over year, and with May up 63% the company's $4 million revenue projection is obviously looking pretty good.
Hopefully the stock will go up today, notwithstanding the lousy market.
Steve
stockmann re IMMGE:
I can understand that this quarter is an anomaly, but will be glad for the company to shed the E, whatever the report says.
I have a sizeable enough position already and am not willing to add to it. Obviously wish I had held off buying until now. But if the stock takes off, I should do quite well anyway.
Thanks.
Steve
stockmann re IMMGE:
Do you have any idea when we might expect the E to come off? What is the problem?
Thanks.
Steve
Len:
I am in way over my head here, but will share one other thought about the action in uranium stocks in the recent past.
For a couple of years, I have had a substantial position in a natural resources mutual fund, GHAAX. It owns what you would expect to it to own: large cap energy and industrial metal stocks, with a small exposure to the precious metals. I have always seen it as a kind of proxy for the natural resources area as a whole. While there is no uranium mutual fund, I have always seen CCJ as a comparable kind of proxy for uranium stocks, and my guess is that it has declined in the recent past to about the same extent as your group of stocks. For the heck of it, I decided to compare the two during the past 3 months:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CCJ&t=3m&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=ghaax
To me this suggests that the recent selloff in uranium stocks may be as much related to a general selloff in the natural resources area as it is to any perception that uranium is particularly frothy. Indeed, one could interpret the chart as suggesting that uranium has held up a little bit better. Of course, if you go back a year, CCJ has way outperformed the resources mutual fund, which may mean that it has further to correct.
Again, I have no wish to defend the valuations of many of the Canadian juniors.
If the spot price for uranium moves up again this week, it will be interesting to see how the stocks react. I was surprised last week to say the least. And if natural resources stocks generally have found some kind of bottom, it may be that uranium has as well.
Steve
Len re Uranium:
I have no quarrel with the idea that some of the Canadian uranium juniors are horribly overvalued, or that the overall sector was (still is?) due for a correction.
But I do think that the supply/demand imbalance in uranium is very real, that the spot price will continue to rise inexorably, and that uranium plays with existing and/or near term production (even a few of the Canadian juniors!) are headed much higher. It is worth noting that the spot price for uranium has not gone down during a single week this year (or last year, as far as I know), notwithstanding the sharp corrections in the other metals:
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx
While I don't track the long term price from week to week, I know that its rise in recent times has been equally dramatic. Again, all this is because of the fundamentals, and frankly, where the price of uranium is concerned, my view is we aint seen nuthin yet.
FWIW, I initiated a position this week in SXR Uranium One, Inc., SXR.TO (SXRFF), and continue to hold substantial (for me) positions in CCJ, DEN.TO (DNMIF), UEX.TO (UEXCF), and U.WT.TO, and small (even smaller after this week!) positions in UNI.V (UNOFF), ALZ.V (ALZTF) and SAN.V(SANRF). I have been looking closely at URRE, but have not yet pulled the trigger.
But as usual, your timing has been extraordinary here. While a 16% correction after this year's gains may not qualify as a collapse, it has been a hit to my portfolio for sure.
Steve
Robsct:
Don't understand your numbers.
Revenue for Q1 was $1,057,000. Looks good for $4 million annualized.
Revenue for April was $227,000. Not looking as good. Would have been nice if today's number had come with an explanation; or, as one poster suggests, reaffirmation of earlier guidance. Instead, company says it is pleased with this number.
But look, have it your way. Sorry to rain on the parade here.
Steve
Robsct:
The $4 million projection is not mine. It is the company's and was made on April 28, not January 17.
The only new contract that I have seen mentioned in a PR is a contract announced on May 10 expected to generate $75,000-$100,000 per year. I would be surprised to learn that there are contracts in place now that the company knows will result in $6 million in revenues for 2006. That would be a 50% increase over the guidance given on April 28, and would undoubtedly be the subject of a public disclosure, especially since a contract generating $75,000 to $100,000 per year is considered newsworthy.
I have no doubt that the company has prospects and is optimistic. Apparently the company is willing to share that optimism with shareholders that call in for information. I am optimistic too, or would not have invested here. But the idea that the company now has 50% more business than it had on April 28 is not credible. Today's PR has me questioning how firm the $4 million is.
Steve
Bobwins re Grandich:
Uranium remains his one "no-brainer" for appreciation. I think he is on record as saying $75/lb is a given -- just a matter of when.
Steve
Robsct:
I have not seen the PR that states revenue numbers are loaded into the second half of the year. Nor have I seen PR projecting $6 million for the year. But then, I am new to the stock and may have missed something.
Steve