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.
Smilincat,
What good advice you have shared with other investors.
Here are a couple of items from "Twelve Timeless Rules for Investing" that go along with your post:
Never throw good money after bad (don’t buy more of a loser).
When all you’re left with is hope, get out.
kag
"an exclusive license for bocx's rapid test assay would be much larger than inverness's $1,000,000 upfront fee for the automated test which again is not their end game."
Mata Hari,
Let's consider your suggestion above that Inverness might be interested in an exclusive license. Are you aware that Inverness has a history of picking up the assets of distressed companies? Given the fact that it is publicly known that BioCurex is presently in financial trouble, doesn't it make sense that Inverness, if they were interested, would exhibit some patience and see if they can pick up the assets on the cheap? If so, where does that leave current shareholders? kag
“However, those who bought at 6.5c and sold at 11c almost doubled their money in a few weeks, which is not bad.”
My comment: Since BioCurex stock closed yesterday at $.09, the above sentence is obviously just one side of the story. The omitted part of the story is that some poor investor is now underwater on any BioCurex shares recently purchased at $.11 cents. By the way, that is a hefty 18.1% loss on their investment. kag
"this stock is hovering around about .09/share, it can't go much lower". If it cannot go much lower then it is a safe bet that it has to stay where it is (even money) or go up (turn a profit).
My comment:
I am astonished that the two above consecutive sentences were actually posted yesterday. If any investor really believes those two sentences are accurate, they probably deserve to get separated from their money. kag
TheBocx,
I will give you another measure of free information. Believe it or not, the stock market is usually very efficient. If investors believe a company's stock was worth more, they usually are willing to pay more for it. And what is written on this or any other message board will not pervent investors from paying the higher price for the stock, whatever it is. If any company has something tangible that will create shareholder value, they should put out in the public domain for investors to evaluate. Otherwise, as time passes, the stock price almost always retreats for a company that has not yet shown profitability. kag
Based on the content of a recent post, the following additional information seems appropriate along with the link:
http://invest-faq.com/fiveminute/chapter2.html
Mistake #5: Choosing stocks that are in a downtrend
Buying stocks which are in a downward price spiral is the most common mistake among novice investors. In order to profit from such a strategy, you need to be right about two things at once : First, that the stock's slide will end (a surprising number never do until they become worthless), and secondly, the timing of when (and at what price) the stock's slide will end. Your chances of being right about both things are slim.
Mistake #6: Adding to a losing position
Another strategic error commonly practiced by many amateur investors is adding more money to a losing position. The reasoning in the mind of the investor who does this goes something like this: "I bought the stock when it was $40. Now it is $20, so it's twice as good a deal as it was at $40. Besides, my average cost per share will come way down once I add to the position." Sometimes this is called dollar cost averaging - putting an certain dollar amount into a stock at specified time intervals or at specified price intervals when the stock drops in value.
kag
mcd2inga
Again, your post is accurate and perfectly expressed. kag
mcd2inga,
I want to thank you for your accurate, well thought out post. kag
TheBocx,
Here are two items from the Moderator's Handbook concerning what is to be deleted:
Personal Attack – when someone attacks one or more members personally rather than the content of that Member's message. The post does not have to be addressed to the "target" of the attack to be considered a Personal Attack. If it attacks a messenger rather than the message, it qualifies for deletion and it is expected that Moderators will remove it.
Off Topic: Posts about or focusing on other Members and their reasons for posting on the board (i.e. "XYZDownDaDrain" is just a basher, ignore him", "XYZToDaMoon" is a pumper").
kag
The information below is all factually based on the following link: (http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/profile_disclosure/)
How long has BioCurex been dealing with SmallCapNetwork (TGR Group LLC)?
Answer: Since October 2003.
Prior to March 13, 2009, how many shares has BioCurex, Inc. given to SmallCapNetwork?
Answer: 1,125,000 shares
What did SmallCapNetwork do with these 1,125,000 shares?
Answer: They sold all of them.
What is the total amount of money that SmallCapNetwork received from selling all of those shares?
Answer: $1,032,180.58
Since money does not magically come out of thin air, where did all of this $1,032,180.58 (that SmallCapNetwork received by selling all of these shares) come from?
Answer: Directly out of the pocket of any investor who purchased the stock they sold.
kag
TheBocx,
You said that you did not understand my question, and that conveys to me all I needed to know. kag
TheBocx,
Half Full Glass, in a post addressed to Gold Seeker, has posted the following as a fact:
"When you attack Recaf you see words and arguments, I see the faces of these people and their family members."
My comment to you, TheBocx:
In the name of fairness and consistancy, and your standard for accuracy, do you have anything to say to Half Full Glass? kag
TheBocx,
You just stated:
"Do you know many scientists in the USA that open accounts to trade penny stocks because they saw an interesting presentation in a congress?"
What! Are you suggesting that scientists in the USA would have no interest in buying a stock that they think might make them wealthy? kag
TheBocx,
You just stated:
"Please explain your rationale as to why the results obtained in an FDA approved clinical trial would be different from those presented by the company?"
Wow! I am assuming that you are an investor. Have you not given any thought to what you just stated above? kag
TheBocx,
A little far fetched? Hardly. Do you really believe what you just posted? kag
TheBocx,
Hold your horses for just a minute. Are you not aware that it is actually the sensitivity and specificity of RECAF in FDA approved clinical trials that is meaningful? kag
TheBocx,
You mentioned that Dr. Moro had presented in congresses. It is nice that he has done that, and for how many years? Today, BioCurex closed at less than nine cents a share. Where is the evidence that any of those scientifically knowledgable people, who attended those congresses, are snapping up this stock? kag
TheBocx,
You just posted the following sentence:
"Are you suggesting that Dr. Moro made up or fudged the data that he presents in congresses, in press releases and in Biocurex web site?"
My response:
I am stating factually that RECAF has never been subjected to any FDA approved clinical trials. Therefore, the sensitivity and specificity of RECAF, under those conditions, is totally unknown. kag
TheBocx,
You just posted the following sentence:
"Moreover, worse markers such as CEA, CA15-3, etc are routinely used for monitoring and their sensitivity and specificity we all agree is lower than RECAF’s."
I, for one, cannot agree with your above statement. What really matters is how RECAF would perform in FDA approved clinical trials. Since RECAF has never been subjected to any FDA approved clinical trials, what RECAF's sensitivity and specificity might be under those strict conditions is presently unknown. So how can you say that we all agree that the sensitivity and specificity of CEA and CA15-3 is lower than RECAF's? kag
TheBocx,
I have copied IHub’s definition of a Personal Attack immediately below:
“Personal Attack – when someone attacks one or more members personally rather than the content of that Member's message. The post does not have to be addressed to the "target" of the attack to be considered a Personal Attack. If it attacks a messenger rather than the message, it qualifies for deletion and it is expected that Moderators will remove it.”
TheBocx,I hope that you understand, that as a poster, you can only address the content of another post. You do not have the right to state that another poster is “wrong again” or any other similar comments.
You asked the following questions:
"If a hypothetical poster fabricates stuff and uses poor rationale to justify constantly bashing a company does another poster have the right to expose him for his mistakes and speculate on his intentions?"
Answer – No.
"Is the official policy of this forum to allow posters to be fallacious, malicious and unethical and ban the comments that expose that conduct?"
Answer – As Moderator, my function is to insure that the rules for posting on IHub are followed. Determining what is fallacious, malicious or unethical in a post is not a function of the moderator position as long as the rules for posting on IHub are followed.
"Do the rules also apply the other way around? For example, if a poster fabricated stuff and used a flawed rationale to now HYPE the stock, would the comments of another poster exposing him and his intentions be deleted as personal attacks?"
Answer – In all cases, if any comments were directed at the messenger rather than the content of the post, then yes, that post would be deleted.
kag
Gold Seeker,
I just deleted three of your posts for personal attacks. kag
TheBocx,
I just deleted eight of your posts today for personal attacks. You have the right to present contrary information concerning the content of a post, but you do not have the right to attack the author while doing that. kag
TheBocx,
You said: "Kag: There are a lot of articles here that have nothing to do with BOCX (e.g. Siemens, GE, etc). We are discussing the conflict of interest of doctors who own imaging equipment... Shouldn't they be classified as 'off topic'?"
My Comment: I disagree. It is a fact that a serum RECAF test cannot locate cancer within the human body. Therefore, some kind of imaging instrument would have to be used to locate the cancer. For example, a CAT Scan, or MRI, or something else. Those scans are not cheap, and, just like a serum RECAF test, they have false positives associated with them. Who knows what the future holds for medical care cost containment, but it seems fairly obvious the U.S. Government does not have unlimited funds for medical care, or anything else. Those are valid subjects for the investors of BioCurex whose serum RECAF test is directly dependent on successful imaging to locate early-stage cancer. If a serum RECAF test does not allow early-stage detection though the subsequent imaging, what does it really matter? kag
i_invest_utrade,
Eight of your posts in the last three days have been deleted. The rules for posting on IHub forbid personal attacks on other posters. kag
Gold Seeker,
Personal information about another poster, whether accurate or not, cannot be posted on this board. Thus, your last post has been deleted. kag
TheBocx,
You stated:
“Finally, there is the issue that you still need to address. You have a basher who posts like there is no tomorrow, who has chased everybody away, who is mostly wrong about most of what he writes, who has a repertoire of 5-6 topics that he repeats time and again and who as a consequence of all that, under your tutelage, has essentially destroyed this board. That is not a personal attack these are facts. Now, what are you going to do about it?”
My comment:
Actually nothing, as long as Gold Seeker observes the rules for posting on IHub. And are you sure that Gold Seeker chased everybody away from this board? My recollection is that BioCurex management paid $90,000 for a company message board. Many posters from this board moved over to the company message board and encouraged others to follow them. I believe the idea was to ignore Gold Seeker and he would go away. Well, he kept on posting, and do you really believe that has something to do with my tutelage? This board happens to be an open forum that welcomes all views so long as the rules for posting are followed. The facts are that about everyone who moved over to the company message board encouraged everyone to not post here, and Gold Seeker kept on posting, which he had the right to do. Isn't all the concern about Gold Seeker misdirected? And shouldn't all that concern be directed squarely at BioCurex? I happen to believe that the market is efficient. In other words, considering everything, a stock almost always sells for about what it is actually worth. kag
The Bocx,
Duplicate posts (an accidental duplicate post) can be deleted by the moderator, but this does not include a similar post to what has been posted previously or the same content posted by a different person.
You should be reminded that you cannot personally attack another person on this board. You certainly have the right to disagree with the content of another post, but you do not have the right to personally attack the person writing the post. I am reminding you of the rule against personal attacks because in your post #17768 you stated the following: "That should be enough even for a paid basher, let alone an amateur such as GS claims to be." Thus, you are insinuating that GS is a paid basher. What factual proof do you have for your insinuation, or is it just your opinion without any factual basis? kag
Quandongboy,
You have just posted the following statement:
"Between him and Kag you have an anti-biocurex chorus that like to bend the facts to their own views, and present the resulting mish-mash as established fact."
My comment: Please point out anything, in any post that I have made, where I have "bent the facts" to my own view or presented "mish mash" as established fact. It was easy for you to falsely accuse me, but the burden you now have to prove your false accusations will be very difficult. kag
The following two consecutive sentences were copied verbatim from the BioCurex paid message board this morning:
"On a certain crazy level, it wouldn't bother me if the stocks go lower. I'll certainly add to my position for a greater captial gain."
My comment: Don't investors realize that one of the fundamental rules for investing (if you want to keep from getting separated from your money), is to never, ever under any circumstance, add to a losing trade, or "average" into a position. kag
I have difficulty understanding sometimes what investors are thinking. Buying low and selling higher would seem to be a reasonable goal for most investors. Some BioCurex stock sold about three trading days ago for $0.11 and for the past couple of days it has sold in the range of $0.12 to $0.13 a share. This morning some shares have sold again for $0.11 and the current bid is $0.10 a share. What would anyone bet that this stock will be selling for $0.10 before long? If so, that would be a 23% lower price per share compared to $0.13 per share. So what are those $0.13 a share buyers thinking? kag
Gold Seeker,
Despite all the unkind rhetoric toward you, have you ever wondered how many of the same, underwater investors in BioCurex (if it was magically possible for them to turn the clock back) would gleefully exchange their underwater shares for their original investments in BioCurex and run? kag
Opportunity Knocking posted the following this afternoon on the BioCurex paid message board:
“If I were CEO, I would find an attorney that will work on contigency and sue Goldseeker for every cent he owes shareholders.”
My comment –
Your premise that Gold Seeker somehow owes shareholders is preposterous. You seem to be ignoring the fact that investors themselves are ultimately responsible for their own investment decisions. The internet has an abundance of investment advice warning investors of the perils of adding to a losing stock position. How long has BioCurex been in a losing stock price situation? Wouldn’t most experts on investing agree that the stock market is generally efficient? In other words, considering everything, isn’t the current share price of a stock (BioCurex or any other stock) generally about the price it deserves? The current financial condition of BioCurex is unknown. Is that affecting the share price? It is also not known whether or not BioCurex was able to make the December 2008 and January 2009 Smithline monthly loan payments. Is that affecting the current share price? Who is responsible for that lack of information to investors? Who has not answered recent questions from concerned BioCurex investors on the company paid message board? Gold Seeker has posted lots of factual information on this board. You are ignoring the fact that truthful information has no legal liability. kag
Yesterday, there was a trade of 8650 shares of BioCurex at $0.14 a share. This morning, 22600 shares have traded at $0.11 a share. That represents a decrease in share price of approximately 21.42%. One of most quoted rules of investing is “Never, ever, under any circumstance, should one add to a losing position …not ever.” The link cited below goes on to state: “Averaging down into a losing trade is the only thing that will assuredly take you out of the investment business.”
http://ezinearticles.com/?Never-Add-to-a-Losing-Trade&id=1284069
However, it costs nothing to wait and monitor a stock for any news that might truly warrant an investment.
Now, what are the odds that BioCurex will soon sell for the current bid which is $0.10 a share? kag
Odd Kelly,
From the content of today's posts on the BioCurex paid message board, it appears that the significance of your two posts, where you pointed out an important adverse effect of false positives, has been overlooked. Why do you suppose your two posts have not invoked at least some discussion on the company paid message board? kag
Docking Station,
This morning on the BioCurex paid message board you posted the following:
“GS is a sham and we all know that.”
The word “sham” is defined as something false or empty that is purported to be genuine; a spurious imitation. The quality of deceitfulness; empty pretense.
Since you, on at least one occasion, have posted Gold Seeker’s name on the BioCurex paid message board, here is another definition you might chew on for awhile:
libel n. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
kag
Yesterday, 5500 shares of BioCurex sold for $0.11 a share. This morning someone paid $0.14 for 8650 shares. That is a fairly large percentage increase from yesterday's low. What has changed from yesterday? There has been no announcement from BioCurex. Considering everything, it is enough to make a conservative investor wonder what today's $0.14 a share buyer was thinking? kag
Half Full,
In one of your posts yesterday on the BioCurex paid message board, you stated the following:
“The solution was to rewrite the agreement such that both Abbott and Biocurex could independantly solve the issues from each side. Now that all issues are solved, its time to rumble.”
Where is your factual basis for the above two sentences? Is it all just unsubstantiated hype, at a time when there have been posts on the BioCurex paid message board concerning unreturned phone calls from the company and other cautionary statements?
More important to investors than hype is whether or not BioCurex made its monthly payments to Smithline for December 2008 or January 2009. If those payments were made, why hasn’t BioCurex announced that information to its investors? Although many questions have been submitted and are currently awaiting answers, it is a fact that it has been more than a month since Dr. Moro answered any questions from investors on the BioCurex paid message board. kag
The following are some quotes from Dr. Moro's answers that were posted on the BioCurex paid message board on December 23, 2008:
“We have NOT received a notice of default from the lenders.”
“All that said, the Company is NOT in default.”
“Suffice it to say that we anticipate that we’ll be fully operational after December 31st, 2008. I should add “and possibly in the months that follow” with the emphasis on the word “possibly” as a disclaimer since 2008 has taught us to be cautious about predictions.”
My comment: Why didn't Dr. Moro just come out and say whether BioCurex made the December 1, 2008 monthly payment to Smithline or not? kag
Gold Seeker,
Your recent posts are interesting. A fundamental question for investors is where is the evidence of doctor and medical community support for RECAF? kag
A few days ago the BioCurex paid message board investor relations posted the following:
“Questions submitted to this forum have been batched and forwarded to Dr. Moro for his response. Answers to some questions are not possible because of day to day business dealings. When those matters are resolved, update to date answers will be made available. We would hope that that would be resolved shortly.”
My comment: What matters need to be resolved? Is it financial matters? The latest BioCurex SEC Form 10-Q stated that the cash on hand as of November 14, 2008 was not sufficient for BioCurex to make the December 1, 2008 monthly Smithline loan payment. Is BioCurex currently in default on that loan and, if so, wouldn’t the filing of a SEC Form 8-K be required four business days after an event of default? Why has there been silence from BioCurex with regard to questions asking for the latest financial information? kag