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.
As I write this, the dollar trade volume so far for the day is $4000 with a 10% spread between Bid and Ask. TAUG appears to me to be illiquid .
But lets not forget, it generates no revenue, let alone profit.
Sounds like a bargain new investors should seriously consider. Not!
"I wonder what would happen if someone slapped the ask @ .005 for a million shares?"
What a pitiful pumping attempt.
However, they haven't and TAUG is down more than 15%.
"I wonder how they automate their way around that problem."
I don't know. They probably don't.
If it turns out to be a problem (returns), then I suspect Amazon will decide that their emblem is ill-suited for diabetic test strips. In the mean time, it's a nice perk for DECN and a stick in the eye for JNJ.
How many of Amazon's potential diabetic customers have an Echo device? I'd guess less than 1%. Of those, how many do not know that test strips and meters have to be designed to work with each other? I'd guess less than 2%. Of those, how many will not notice that the link/webpage-title/examples all say "for Use with OneTouch Ultra Meters". I'd guess less than 25%. So the relevant population size is less than 0.005% of Amazon's potential diabetic test-strip customers. IMO, 0.005% is noise in retailing, if there isn't a potential impending PR or legal disaster. IMO, there isn't here.
So for now, it's a nice differentiator and advertising perk, on Amazon, for DECN.
That was classy
Amazon's Choice was new to me too
See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/18/amazon-choice_n_7306158.html
What's an incumbant?
I'm not sure whether you're calling me out for a spelling mistake, or asking why a term most often applied to political positions should apply here.
1. I misspelled the word, it should have been incumbent. (as a big picture guy, I honestly consider spelling errors to be minor details).
2. If it was a question to better understand - I meant a dominant player in a market.
Why would you think Johnson even cares about Amazon
I don't think they do. And for a commodity product, that is an Achilles heal.
"GenStrips are indeed ahead of the One Touch Ultra Test Strips"
And that was my point. Retrospective looks at market share always favor the incumbants. Of course DECN's sales on Amazon aren't nearly as important as their their overall financial results. But if their Amazon sales accelerate, that would be a leading indicator to me.
And my "Birtherism" reference was a direct retort to your "Clintonism" label. Neither have a place in this discussion.
You seem to still want to battle. I'd rather ratchet it down.
Unfair question
You shifted the topic from one about current sales ranking to a request forecast about how well a future product would do. Yes, I'm a big picture kind of guy, but I'm capable of recognizing when someone tries to totally redefine the discussion details.
I'm confident ksvikings' not a DECN insider (and neither am I).
BTW, why didn't you respond to my counter point? Are you only interested in the details, regardless of the big picture?
"An accurate observation would be that they are selling better than the Onetouch strips."
Serial fibs eventually have an impact on credibility
My eyes have been opened
Berman didn't suggest that I reconsider my position
Your false implication has no basis, other than imagined collusion, and I found it offensive.
I tried to offer you an olive branch to ratchet things down. But you seem to still be on the offensive, and I'm not sure why.
I've been unusually candid, compared to others on this forum, divulging specifics about my educational background, my personality type, most of the places I've lived, and the fact that no one is paying me to post here. I find no reason for us to be enemies.
Yes, we interpret current events, future likelihoods, and the sanctity of rules much differently. You appear to think that I am directly connected with Keith Berman. I am not. Other than the two phone conversations I've had with him and the public (no private) messages on this forum we may have exchanged.
I would prefer to discuss things with you, in the future, as genuine exchanges, rather than just sparring.
You can signal your agreement (or not), by your behavior.
Hoping for better communication, but ready for battle, if that is your choice.
Don't let me down. Please read my latest_prior_note
Time to step back and take a breath
I responded to loanranger's post that included: "A company DOES NOT work with OTC to uplist"
I did it poorly. But OTC is not just an enforcement organization, they have formal programs to help small companies succeed. So IMO, companies do work with OTC to uplist. The OTC can be a valuable resource to query about things that are unclear to the small business. And that business may have a specific contact to help them progress, including up-listing.
That's it. That's all I meant.
This thread has spiraled out of control, and a big part of that is my fault.
I apologize.
Thanks for your humor
"There are no negotiations."
I consider that very naive.
Let's get rid of all the escalation procedures and judges because all of the regulations are absolute and never challenged?
If something might be challenged, there is always room for negotiation.
I guarantee you that you haven't been directly involved, and responsible in an OTC up list filing
And I see that you ignored, or conveniently didn't see my response to ksuave:
"A company either meets the requirements of the OTC or they don't."
Of course
------------
So what is your point. Are you saying that the up list process is completely automated and their is no need for any discussion. It's all crystal clear in the regulations and you comply or don't.
If that is what your saying, I find your perspective naive. We live in different worlds.
"A company either meets the requirements of the OTC or they don't."
Of course, but there is the issue of timing - how long do they have, and how precise do their filings have to be. The judgement that is required on elements like this isn't spelled out in the regulations. And there are often things that the regulations don't address at all that may be important to both sides in the negotiations.
As for the post on Yahoo, I didn't make any comments about its contents. So most of your note had nothing to do with my post, and I have no comment on that part.
"A company DOES NOT work with OTC to uplist"
loanranger,
I've never been involved with an OTC up-list application. But I've led several multi-million dollar negotiations with many parts of our Federal and States governments. In my experience, the world is almost never black and white (i.e. you meet the standards or you do not). It turns out many of the rules are subject to nuances of interpretation. That's what most high-level negotiation is about, in my experience.
IMO, your absolute statement in the subject line would be naive, for all of negotiations (dozens) I've been directly involved with. Does my negotiation experience apply to the OTC? Perhaps not. But my guess is that you don't have any experience in applying to the OTC for an up-list either (especially the off-line conversations)
To me, saying, "I'm Working With X" is a natural way of describing a process, if you view it as a negotiation. But if viewed as an enforcement process, then I can see your perspective.
My point is that your absolute statement that "A company DOES NOT work with OTC to up-list" is probably correct from a rule-book perspective, but probably incorrect for what actually goes on behind the scenes in many cases.
My point? You expressed an opinion as if it was a fact. I disagree.
I'm not sure mystery is required
I don't think posting information from another site that is on topic is against iHub IOS rules - but I may be wrong. We'll see.
The quoted post came from the Yahoo board, and as I type this, it is the most recent one and is said to have been posted 21 hours ago.
The poster's alias is Jrdelane, which is not an ID I recognize (but that's probably irrelevant).
Total $volume today about $1000. Up/down percent irrelevant
How dare you let facts sully the story
Sigh - some are unable to reason with facts
Mistaken preconceptions render them incapable of seeing the truth. Such is life
Yeah, I don't think many really understand what market makers do. As you know, they don't just connect buy and sell orders, they MAKE markets.
They can use their inventory to sell to a buyer at $1 when the only people willing to sell are at $1.01. If the market for a particular stock has spiked up, they may short their existing inventory as an insurance policy. This type of activity improves the liquidity of the market for buyers and sellers.
One_of_us is right and one wrong - Agreed!
And one of us referenced a credible website and the other has only provided personal opinion.
Many shorts own the stock they are shorting
Especially MMs
MMs do hold inventories of pink sheet stocks
The logic of the Investopedia quote I previously provided you with holds, for all kinds of stocks.
Investopedia says MM's do hold an inventory
Yep - No Sellers and no "Halt ???!"
Yep - No sellers (including hedge funds)
Buyers are waiting for the next compelling piece of concrete information.
Clarification: DECN filed responses to JNJ's Motion_to_dismiss. Correct?
Thanks
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Specific reference please.
A genuine deep belly laugh - going to bed
I don't know. Hopefully, some will enlighten us.
Yes - my question was based on your_post. My question was more like, did some guy named Scott Smith try to get a hold of you? I said he's new to the forum and I haven't got a good reading on him yet. But I volunteered to call you first.
scottsmith Wednesday, 06/01/16 08:30:55 PM
Re: DrZem post# 32090
Post # 32091 of 35857
Everyone write down a list of questions and I will ask Keith Berman tomorrow.
Your excuse was bad phone# - worked_first_time for me
Like I said, you chickened out. I asked KB's assistant if you had called and she said no. KB said the same.
It's quite sad, you chickened-out calling KB. EOM
My DECN disclosure was full and honest
Your's is still missing.
I wouldn't normally take the time to respond to someone who effectively calls me a liar, based on FUD. But I'm not going to let you get away with it this time.
1. I live in CT, not Cleveland, and have for 25 years.
2. I am a retired investor. I went to work for IBM straight out of grad school at the Univeristy of California at Irvine and retired after working for IBM for 32 years.
3. Your recall of the interchange between Viking and I about calling KB was accurate. But your FUD fails again. Here's the truth. KB saw a post of mine on iHub in which I said I was an ENTP (a personality type). He was curious why I would post that on a stock investing forum. He also has an interest in personality typing. We had never met, or communicated. Viking graciously acted purely as an intermediary. I called KB the next morning and we had a very pleasant 30 minute conversation. KB mentioned that your name is Richard and you worked for a hedge fund in AZ during that call.
There is no FUD potential here, as much as you might like there to be.
Now your turn - candid disclosure, or more accusations and FUD?
Full disclosure of my motivation - what's your's?
Richy,