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.
OOO! 4.0, PL (lol): if you want to know my system and example returns, feel free to send me PM with your email address, and will point you to it....since you had general curiosity.....all this saying not trading LQMT right now because it doesn't meet my criteria (that you can see if interested).
That msg was intended for the Polker Player that has a 4.0 and changed identities. Hope he got the answer he was looking for.
I wanted to tell you also ( since you were looking for a response), that sometimes I trade after hours (a lot of the time) but not on penny stocks. The stories are better with quality momentum stocks and some securities with macro-trends with inverses to play either side without shorting. Since we aren't in a network, this approach works best for us and we still get returns. The stocks we like the most have robust fundamentals and are favored by smart money that you don't have to know; meaning you can spot their trends and bets through public info, etc. Boards can be good for bouncing off ideas, right. We like LQMT because of the technology trend, but as far as investing, it's not really our style unless there are some new developments that can be openly talked about that start a long term sustainable trend. Those are the kind of stocks that we like best because they can go for along time, but the ones that seem to do best have positive and improving fundamentals with some consistency. Clearing debt is a good sign right...but that's really about all we heard that has a near term financial impact, so....
Agree, if you don't get it right, negative compounding can work against you; so, being able to get it right depends on more than math or compounding. We prefer approaches that put more probability on trader/investor side which is more than math and technical analysis in our view. We don't see a lot of benefit to trying to explain beyond this without the full tool box which doesn't appear to be the general approach to things here.
Here's the math, do 30% three times, compound it all, and get over 200%. Do it six times and you're almost at 500%. There are more semi-predictable 30% moves in the universe of stocks than a rare 200% move on a penny stock. I think LK went public on this awhile back.
You might consider Edgar/SEC database searches on "LQMT"...a lot of docs and history there.
...Just one more thing if you want to know (and this probably isn't to penny stocker standards). Can make about 30% in 3-4 weeks on one security that's diversified and no big deal and won't require watching it, etc. ...can check it ocassionally and do other things.....it's not 200% but it's not a roller coaster...and I can do this over and over again within it's rhythm or it's inverse rhythm, etc......with LQMT, I can't figure out the rhythm. There's support and resistance, etc....but I don't get the memo on pumps, so....you definitely do not want to take my lead.
The other point is, some people did seem to sell at your buy range and bought back in at a lower point and caught the pump; so we really don't know what you are talking about. We didn't buy back in. We agree that the pump would have been great to experience but we weren't in a position to watch the stock at that time. Our gains someplace else were not 200-300%, bit they were positive, etc., and doing what we do, we may come out ahead in August. But we aren't buying LQMT right here. We might miss a move in LQMT this month, so don't follow us for sure. And as you pointed out, if ppl bought at the lower points, and did better, them good for them. If you do the math, it would have paid to sell at .08 and buy back at the lower price even if you took an initial loss. So, I don't get your point. I don't have a crystal ball. I think the pump based on a patent was superficial because there was no commercial information that I was aware of, but if the patent spelled it, I missed it. The company would have had to make an announcement that followed the patent release for me to have had the same reaction, but apparently penny stock investors/players see it as great and pumpable....I don't see the PR that could go with it so it seems like implementation is still out.
P.s. we personally like the leadership...likable....but as for leading for shareholder value and convincing outside shareholders....not so great....they don't seem vey transparent or communicative. Maybe they have to be this way...but I'd rather get behind investments with more public information at this point.....but I won't give up on the, either....as for predicting 200-300% moves...I can't do it.
i'd tell you what is working for but can't do it on this board ....so.....that's the story...
We're watching this stock to see how it plays out. Never met an investor that got anywhere thinking that had to stick with just one stock like this one seems to attract.
It seems to me that the company is probably fully aware of how this stock plays on people; we didn't realize this before because we were used to a different calibre of leadership based on experience.
So it's a penny stock that might turn into an investment someday.
Seriously, why would anyone think they have to stick with just one security anywhere....and why would anyone expect ppl not to revisit an area/stock. There are so many different ways to approach it, that it seems unreasonable to me that anyone should necessarily comply with anyone else's view of things.
On the other hand, there are investment principles that are universally known and understood by many.... But they don't seem to apply here.
So, for sure we will be in and out, but not to anyone elses expectations but out own.
If we miss out on lqmt in August because we are more focused on someting else more certain, so be it. it works for us.
We have different investment/trading styles. I don't have inside information and it looked grim to me and I did make money someplace else and I will again, until this stock has something more than hype and behind it. For example, if you believe that a pump is right around the corner, then it has to be based on inside information because nothing that I see suggests anything different. As far as the stock dropping to this point, I personally wouldn't consider it even here, but anyone can do as they wish. My threshold was where I sold. If this stock drops further, we'll consider it. But before, I bought into the hype and dream and passed on other more predictable returns waiting it out for a year. if you have more predictable information, what is it? I didn't understand dilution before this stock because I had never experienced it. As for public companies in general and their leadership, I expected more from the current group based on their background. But it didn't make a difference. It seems to me that you have to be an insider and it seems to me that the pump on a patent was superficial because the actual use of it would probably not come until another round of dilution.
But more than anything, I don't see anyone on this board that understand fundamental analysis. And I seem to recall that you stated that you were sitting it out all fall, except using a different name and alias.
So really, if people want to invest in hype they certainly can, but because the company hasn't delivered on it, I don't see the promise on returns unless you have inside information.
I avoided a loss I didn't want and made back some of earlier losses and expect to do it again, but not just waiting on one security. Makes no sense when the company doesn't speak to shareholder value.
It doesn't mean you can't get a pop out of it. but if you do, it's not based on investment principle. Unless the company reveals more which they won't.
But a 4.0 alias that has more than one personality sounds worse.
This is a great stock for dreamers.
All the hopefuls on potential don't really count until they can monetize it or convince investors that they can. If they have, it's for insiders still.
FB has positive and growing revenue and earnings, out the gate. Big difference between that where LQMT is. FB did their IPO AFTER they had a solid subscriber base and customers. Big difference. But maybe LQMT will get there. It seems to me that they can, but no without potential dilution first. Until they say how they plan to "finance" operations post 1Q2014 it's all conjecture except to maybe insiders.
Meant "ecos" ( vs. ego). As for "investing" in it, if it means dilution, again...have to seriously consider "when" to think about participating even if the implied future sounds interesting.
An eco-system concept with sub-ecos, or peripheral/island connected egos is interesting from a developmental perspective, but as for near term revenue, hard to say (sounds at least a year plus away); but with a solid foundation/infrastructure, there could be more to leverage later for ease of business later ( vs. one off).
This is a wild guess, but by AAPL keeping LQMT at arms length, it allows them to experiment with diversification in the area of BMG.
Example, if AAPL, LQMT, VCP, etc., are grooming their websites for a similar look and feel ( pointed out by someone else), and in the same mention, "ecosystem", and if LQMT were to get traction with other industries or started with it through licenses to non-CE industries (even if some time off), and if AAPL considers buying LQMT some day .... Then the combination of activities is interesting from a longer term developmental perspective, meaning, AAPL's ecosystem could leverage LQMT's emerging ecosystem ,etc., and potential diversification through a future buyout potentially.
Even if not a buyout, through a common or similar ecosystem concept, as reference or semi-standard, it could be more straightforward for a company like AAPL to participate in other markets and visa v. within an agreed to standard or framework, with each partner/company having unique experience maintaining their core competence, etc.
We don't speak for the company, here what it seems to us. longer term posters or people more familiar might see it differently:
====================
YOUR QUESTIONS:
In relation to my last post, this brings up a point that I have a hard time understanding. Granted, I have ZERO knowledge of corporate business and why they do some things, here are some questions I have a hard time wrapping my mind around:
1- What exactly is Crucible? (Entity set ip by lqmt to escrow and/or vault their intellectual property)
2- Why was there a need to create a separate entity (purpose)? (Protection)
3- Technically, who controls Crucible? (LQMT along with some binding agreements with AAPL)
4- Is it wholly owned by LQMT, Apple, or jointly and who has what % ownership? LQMT
*I am aware majority ownership, sometimes does not mean a majority of control. (Depends on agreements)
5- Will it protect LQMT's interests, or Apple's? ( both)
6- If Crucible has a Board, does Apple have members on it? (It doesn't appear so)
7- Crucible's company Officers: Apple, LQMT, Both? LQMT
IHub owns the board (not individual posters).
Maybe send a letter direct? .... CC you know who ??
GS
No offense but for avg joe they kind of have zero credibilty.
Even for a non-professional it's kind of insulting to watch it. I suppose it fills their pockets when all go along with it...doesn't always work, right, but definitely stirs the pot.
Who rates better, Jeffries or Barclays in terms of credibility?
It seems like they live in this bizarre world of playing school yard politics with ratings thinking most people dumb enough to believe it. On options they might be right.
Let's see an electric slide into 160 right, lol
How do they "downgrade" a stock but raise price target BY $51 ?
Where is GS's upgrade?
Sorry for typos, on an ipad that needs a new cover.
back in May, it took 1 day to digest before two more days up after ER. With Jeffries upward revision and conference planned for Monday, wonder id this time will be the same. i also wonder how 170 will be hit on options tomorrow ??
August 12 update at Jeffries Conference who raise price target today from 130 to 160.
Also, the forecasted earnings growth for future years increases year over year such that the PEG ratio is really negative (a positive), with anticipated growth in both Europe and Asia and channels to market for OEM with other large auto suppliers...looks like opportunity for future growth.
Supposedly the company provided on-GAAP accounting for comparison with some analyst estimates that were also non-GAAP determined for easier comparison with expectations. Do you know if it was a similar situation when the co. reported last May?
You have to wonder about poster that changes alias and picture after a change in sentiment on the stock, either way, lol.
Do you really think Kang is hanging out on this board, lol? eho is he?
R&D perspective: as long as their is "risk" on schedules and/or proof of future capabilities (always the case with anything new), it's better to let the little co. do what they do to finance it, etc. When it's looking good for mass production or close to it, then a bigger co. would consider buying it unless it is already integral to the bigger cos. R&D operations with specific milestones unknown to the public (other than just tests, etc.). It sounds like some bigger companies may want to "experiment" with it.
It's more like ignore the poster that doesn't understand fundamental analysis if there is no pump around. Al the rant and rave won't change it.
What really drives the price of a stock is not technical analysis, it's company fundamentals and professional sentiment (in high level terms). The 80% statistic is probably based on observation of larger stocks, etc. It doesn't mean it won't or can't happen....consider looking at the sample set for the statistics. My guess is that the stats pertain to larger cap stocks where more is known about them with more institutional support, etc...but you never know 100% for sure about any of it, except that larger cap stocks with institutional support, and good company fundamentals, with professional analyst coverage are more predictable statistically speaking. We could have left you in the dark.
It seems to me that even if they get another near term pop, it won't stick given other factors.
A golf related or other announcement could turn it, right, but like has been said, whatever they anticipate won't keep the lights on post 1Q2014, so......