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.
kozuh, others re counting bags:
If you buy a stock for $1 and sell it for $10, is that a 9-bagger or a 10-bagger?
Thanks!
Steve
Rocketstocks re P F S D:
Company has a loss in each of the last 5 quarters. Does not qualify for mention on this board.
Looks like a good candidate for sister board, VM ZipCodeChangers.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=3294
Steve
OT re uranium:
Good article quoting Combs of UxC, "Uranium's future bright next 10 to 20 years":
http://www.miningweekly.co.za/min/news/today/?show=82096#
Of particular interest:
"As to how high the spot price of uranium may rise in the coming years, Combs notes that there is a lot of speculation on this subject, 'with numbers as high as $500 a pound mentioned by one investment analyst'.
'I’m on record as saying that $50 is a definite possibility, but $100 highly unlikely, although recent developments suggest that significant upward price pressure may be more likely than before.
'In any case, it is quite likely that the price will break $40 shortly, and at least test its all-time high in terms of nominal dollars later this year.'"
Steve
hweb2 re HEMA:
Wish you luck accumulating more at that level. I took the plunge at $2.05, concerned that this one might be headed to $3.
Thanks very much for posting about this stock.
Steve
Many, many thanks to Cintrix and others who bring the news to this board. I have found this board very helpful.
Steve
Doubling down:
FWIW, I would love to see a different kind of contest, designed to test whether diversification is a good thing. Haven't given it much thought, but the concept of doubling down brings it to mind. You could have a contest where you could elect to pick X number of stocks, or to pick 3X number of stocks -- you would be in one group or the other. No trades, no freezes. I would love to see a comparison of how the two groups do. I'm sure this is because I break all the rules where diversification is concerned, and because at any point in time I do not have a strong conviction about 6 stocks -- only 2 or 3.
I do appreciate that the more stocks that are required, the more ideas we get. But SSKILLZ1's lists have a wealth of ideas, and if the number of picks in each category is structured a certain way, we might wind up with the same number of stock ideas anyway.
Just a thought . . .
I love these contests, whatever the rules and format, and greatly appreciate all that SSKILLZ1 and Len do to make them happen.
Steve
10bagger re SDRLF, BGH:
Many thanks for pounding the table on both of these stocks. I have sizeable (for me) positions in each.
Have you sold BGH.v? or is your reference to BGS.v a typo? Just curious, as I would be interested in your reasons for selling BGH, if you have done so.
Steve
OT?: markrhead re warrants:
Greatly appreciate this link. Do you own any of the warrants listed?
I own May '07 warrants for Uranium Participation Corporation, what the site calls Uranium Partners. They have done well lately, and I look for them to really take off if/when the spot price for uranium crosses $40/lb.
Thanks.
Steve
SSKILLZ1:
Understood.
Thanks.
Steve
SSKILLZ1, Len:
Please trade my TSTA for RGMI.
Thanks.
Steve
Berliet re VPHM:
I appreciate your thoughts.
I do not think that the conference call caused the selling. I think that the guidance did, which is included in the PR released prior to the opening. Frankly, I am looking for something to explain why the guidance is so "conservative," for want of a better word. The guidance gives rise to an inference that there will be problems with Vancocin sales as early as 2006. I don't know why this should be.
I assume that there will eventually be competition for Vancocin in the future. I just don't see why it should have any impact on 2006 revenues.
I am holding all shares purchased in May of 2004 at $3.88 per share. I have never been tempted to sell until today. Very disappointing.
Steve
VPHM:
I saw a message on the Yahoo board questioning whether management is attempting to hold down the price of the stock in anticipation of a merger or acquisition of some kind. Does that make any sense to anyone? It does not make sense to me, but I cannot think of any reason why the guidance for 2006 is so low.
Steve
OT re Uranium:
Interesting article regarding China's nuclear energy plans:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
Steve
Interesting article on China's nuclear energy plans:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
Steve
otcbargains re UCPJ:
Stock is having a good day today. Up over 65% as this message is written. Hope it is a sign that earnings are good.
Steve
OT re Uranium spot price:
The uranium spot price published Tuesday after the close is now at $38.25/lb.
http://uxc.com/
I do not believe there has been a single week in the past year that the spot price has gone down. There have been many predictions of where it is headed this year, but at this pace it may very well exceed all of them. Uranium stocks have had a pretty good run during the past 3 months.
One pure play on the future spot price of uranium is stock in Uranium Participation Corporation, a corporation that has acquired uranium and is stockpiling it, and there are May '07 warrants affording a leveraged play. I own a number of the warrants, and my sense is that we are at an inflection point such that if the spot price tacks on gains from here, the warrants are going to do extremely well.
Steve
Phil:
My wag is 3/2/06 at 3:20 p.m. ET
Thanks.
swb173
debugframe9 re NMKT:
How do I check out the 10k for March '06? Do you mean some other quarter?
Steve
firecracker070445 re NMKT:
From the Board Info on the NMKT message board, it appears that in 2004 the company projected revenue of $75 million in 2005. It also appears that it will fall far short. While the rosy projections for 2006 may or may not come true, it is not the most undervalued stock I have ever seen:
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/RevenueEPSSummary.aspx?&symbol=nmkt&symbol=&symbol=&symbo...
Steve
Bottom Fishing:
For those looking to bottom fish, please buy the hell out of VSYS.
Steve
hamvestor re VPHM:
I think the stock has started back up for several reasons: announced payoff of all debt; relatively recent additional analyst coverage and expectation that GS may soon begin coverage with positive recommendation -- every current analyst target price I have seen is $26/share or higher; anticipation of good earnings and increased guidance; anticipation of positive news from Maribavir phase 2 trials; and, anticipation of another price increase for Vancocin.
From what I have read, it looks as though $1.50 in earnings for 2006 is well within range. For a biotech, the current price is still extremely cheap. I am expecting the news on Maribavir to be good, and guessing we may see something like $35/share by the end of the quarter if it is.
Steve
stockmann re IMMG:
Thanks much. I think I will let the other half ride for a bit.
Steve
stockmann re IMMG:
Do you have any sense of how high this can go from here? Hard one for me to quantify. Incidentally, first became aware of this stock from a post of yours, and sold half of what I bought today as it had doubled. Wondering when it might make sense to sell the other half.
Thanks for posting about this stock and for any light you can shed on the potential upside.
Steve
hogfan2 re DAAT:
I don't follow the stock closely, but bought a little because it is favored here, and the trend in earnings and revenues was impressive. It looks to me like that trend has been broken, and that they will do $.20-$.21 in earnings for the year -- hardly a bargain at $2.40. I have no idea whether the explanation given is the real story.
I sold everything at the open, but will be looking at the stock again when sales for January are announced.
Steve
DAAT:
DAAT announces sales numbers for Q4 and year 2005:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9504937
Steve
hog re SLLI:
Thanks for the input. Might put a few $$$ into this one myself.
Steve
hogfan2 re SLLI:
Did you ever buy this stock? I notice it has come back to pre-announcement levels. Any thoughts?
Thanks.
Steve
URNZ:
Just saw 1/20 PR. Don't know how I missed it at the time.
Steve
dilead23 re KSWW:
Or because I sold 75% of mine at the same level.
Steve
URNZ:
Up about 100% YTD. Does anyone know why?
Thanks.
Steve
OT yielddude re Raging Bull:
Saw this on another iHub board:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9357872
Steve
hogfan2 re SLLI:
Saw this headline earlier today and the 20% gain. Do you know anything about this company? This is a sizeable order for a company with a $50 million market cap.
Thanks.
Steve
MMRK:
According to Schwab tickler system, MMRK has just announced a large private sale. I have no details. I am trying to find article.
Steve
RMIWA re Uranium:
I have a number of uranium investments. All things uranium have been on a tear the last 60 days. The two large companies have earnings, CCJ and DEN.TO (DNMIF), although I suspect others will start to show earnings this year. After CCJ and DEN.TO there are about 30 to choose from. Of those, I have the highest comfort level with UEX.TO (UEXCF); most that have any substance at all are listed at:
http://www.newfuelnow.com/uranium/
There is an excellent uranium exploration board on iHub:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=2530
Plenty of ideas there to consider.
The spot price that will be published after the close this evening on the UxC Consulting website, http://uxc.com, will be $37.00, up another $.50. A chart of the spot price since 1/1/05 is breathtaking.
I do not subscribe to Dines newsletter. But his picks are discussed on the iHub uranium board and the SI board as well. I don't recall right off hand what his flavor of the month is this month. But he has been the table pounder on uranium generally during the past year or two -- in way ahead of the crowd -- and for that alone he deserves a lot of credit. The fundamentals for uranium are compelling if the world never builds another reactor, and construction will probably be commenced on 100s of them within the next decade. There are no other meaningful alternatives to the energy crisis, and IMHO, 2006 is going to be the first of many good years for uranium investments. There will be many mergers and buyouts, and the rising tide is likely to lift almost all boats.
Hope this helps.
Steve
re Cows:
The jokes board discourages those with political content, so I thought I'd share this here:
DEMOCRAT
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.
REPUBLICAN
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?
SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.
IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.
POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks it's French, other times it's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.
FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegals.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.
Steve
swampboots:
I'll stick my neck out. The 50 bagger for this year: SUF.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=4578
Steve
OTC BB KING re RGEN:
Fish & Richardson is an excellent patent firm. There are many excellent patent firms. BMY will have terrific attorneys -- you can bet on it.
I am surprised that F&R is taking the matter on a contingent fee basis, and surprised that you are privy to the compensation arrangement, but accept your assurance to the board that it is so.
Here is what turned me off 3 months ago:
From the 10-Q for Q1 of FY2006:
"Selling, general and administrative expenses for the three-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2004 were approximately $1,195,000 and $1,029,000 respectively, an increase of $166,000 or 16%. This increase is largely attributable to increased litigation expenses of $156,000 during the three-month period ended June 30, 2005."
From the 10-K for FY2005:
"During fiscal 2005, SG&A costs decreased by approximately $113,000, a result of decreased costs in shareholder services of $212,000 and marketing expenses of $174,000 offset by increased legal costs of $292,000 and external costs relating to compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 of $151,000."
From the 10-K for FY2004:
"Selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) for fiscal 2004 and 2003 were approximately $4,710,000 and $4,159,000 respectively, an increase of $551,000 or 13%. Costs for professional and administrative fees, including patent, legal and insurance premiums, increased $296,000 during fiscal 2004."
And from the 10-K for FY 2003:
"Selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) for fiscal 2003 and 2002 were approximately $4,159,000 and $2,526,000, respectively, resulting in an increase of $1,633,000 or 65%. This increase is largely attributable to increased staffing, investor relations and litigation expenses partially offset by a reimbursement by CRC of premarketing and launch expenses associated with the launch of SecreFlo(TM). We anticipate that SG&A expenses will increase as our litigation activities continue and an expected increase in marketing expenses as we expand our commercial operations."
I guesstimated 3 months ago that legal fees and expenses were running about $750,000 to $1,000,000 per year for a company with gross revenues of $12-$14 million per year. Ugly. But for the contingent fee arrangement that you note in your post, my guesstimate is that, properly pursued, the fees and costs of this new case alone would be an additional $2 million+ over the next 12 months. Really ugly.
If I were long the stock, the fact that RGEN is on the eve of trial in the Imclone case would not be a comfort. Quite the opposite. My assumption is that in the near term company resources -- internal personnel to support the litigation effort -- will be stretched thin by the demands of the litigation that the company has initiated. Perhaps the case will settle favorably. But even if the company hits a home run at trial, there is still the matter of an appeal. I would also be surprised to learn that whoever is pursuing the Imclone case for RGEN is working on a contingent fee basis. Trials in patent cases are expensive.
I wish everyone well that is long the stock. But if I were long, I would not see the filing of a new lawsuit as cause for celebration. I would see it as a failure of negotiations.
Good luck.
Steve
RGEN:
I have been out of this stock for some time. But if I was still in it, I would sure be selling now. Unless the attorneys are working on a contingent fee basis, all earnings of this tiny company are likely to be swallowed up fighting this lawsuit. I mean, the company does $15 million a year in revenues -- geesh.
In my view, the lawsuit is a clear indication that there is no deal to be made. If BMY had real concerns about this lawsuit, a deal would have been done by now. My guess is that the lawsuit has been filed because BMY essentially told RGEN to take a hike when RGEN wanted to "negotiate" the purchase by BMY of RGEN's patent rights. When I looked at this 3 months or so ago, I saw no basis for a lawsuit, and when I spoke to the company, the company spokesperson could not give me a coherent explanation of what the basis for such a suit would be. I would be stunned at an injunction. Even if some judge could somehow be persuaded to issue one -- almost inconceivable to me -- it would be conditioned on a bond that RGEN cannot begin to afford.
Furthermore, as a small biotech I think RGEN would be better served by forging alliances with major pharmas than by suing them. This lawsuit looks like a hold-up to me, and, 3 months ago at least, RGEN had another one in progress against ImClone. This profile does nothing for one's reputation in the larger business community. Who would want to joint venture something with these people?
I have not kept up with developments on the litigation front since I sold what I had. But I did look into it carefully at the time. And I did not like what I saw. The stockholders are in essence contingent fee attorneys, rolling the dice for some payday down the road. I doubt that RGEN's own attorneys are rolling those dice.
Steve