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.
My theory is that some nameless managing supervisor just realized one of his pandemic-paunched teleworker staff was over two years behind in issuing the order, and that they were about to let a non-reporting company get back in compliance without getting a mandatory slap on the wrist. Private sector has no monopoly on missing deadlines.
"This is an orchestrated orderly melt up taking place."
I'm fairly ignorant of how market makers operate. If they are orchestrating an "orderly melt up", why would they do that? Do they have some inside information that tells them there is strong upside price movement coming? Just wondering what the motivation is/would be for MMs to do it. As an amateur stock speculator, I appreciate comments by people who have a better understanding of the mechanics of trading.
Seems like over analysis to me. I think a sufficient explanation for reluctance to get vaccinated is a simple cost-benefit analysis that weighs the risk of catching a cold against being a guinea pig for a rushed vaccine that uses new, untested-until-now methods. I'm not arguing that such a decision is correct, just that I believe a simple calculus like that is why a significant number of people choose not to follow recommendations of the scientific community. It also doesn't help that the scientific community reputation has been dropping in recent years, with repeated examples of failures by the "experts".
I'm still having a hard time seeing the recent increase in stock price as based purely on potential of Covid testing. If it is, I sure hope new focus on the company can spur other commercial applications.
One wonders if today's price increase reflects an amicable resolution of last Friday's emergency discussion (assuming it happened) re QMVT concerns. A two cent sigh of relief?
These message boards confound me. Best price action in what? three years? and no chatter about it. Or is it a case of, if we pretend not to pay attention it will keep climbing? Whatever, it is nice to see the uptrend. Hope it persists.
Thanks. Seems like a disappointing rift, although I suppose one might view it as a positive if one had confidence that the new deal was worth blowing up existing relationships. Add one more "we'll see" to the ever-growing "we'll see" pile.
A couple of dumb questions. Who/what is QMVT? Also, it seems like all the discussion about the Pasaca deal speculates on potential revenues from Covid testing. Is it possible Pasaca is counting on revenues from other applications of quantum dots?
One can spend countless hours arguing the merits of each position. I stand on my position just relying on a few simple facts. Observed data are proving alarmist computer models to be significantly wrong. There is massive financial incentive for scientists to keep the grant gravy flowing by promoting alarming scenarios. There are huge assumptions that are baked into the UN and other alarming forecasts as to degree of warming and what that means for economic damage, while simultaneously seeming to dismiss human ingenuity and adaptability in the face of changing conditions. In sum, it is clear to me that climate change is vastly overhyped, and the proposed solutions are wrongheaded. Note, however, that I am strongly for technological improvements that expand the suite of available sources of cheap, clean, reliable energy. The primary purpose of my post was just to weigh in as another voice disagreeing with the "consensus" view that if we don't curb carbon emissions to the point of stangling our economy and killing millions of people, we will be exinct in 10 years, or whatever the currently moved goalpost has it.
Kudos to you guys on having a restrained give and take. Hardly ever see that on message boards. Having read widely on the subject, I'm convinced that the climate change alarmism is scientifically unfounded and is used as an effective tool for forcing massive redistribution of wealth and curtailment of individual freedom. All somewhat irrelevant here though, given that anyone holding long positions of QTMM roots for gains due to the successful adoption of the technology.
Based on the CRADAs listed, one might think they are targeting the post-apocalypse survivor segment.
Well, post 111111 should be celebrated with a good bourbon!
Are there any restrictions on when the new shares can trade?
Withdrawal?
Good call. How did you know?
So if I heard right on that interview, Willis indicated last year purchase of 10 million cans, and this year 40 million. Can one assume that is an indication of quadrupled sales, or is it just an indication they are lumping Marley can purchases with Xing can purchases?
Thanks, I appreciate the insight, and also your many other informative posts.
That would make sense, as there is not much logical explanation for his negativity otherwise. I am still curious though, with a lightly traded stock like this, if it is possible to actually know if a downward trend is due to profit taking, or short selling.
I'm a relatively ignorant investor. Is it possible to differentiate between profit taking, and, say, R4C initiating a new short position?
Interesting. At the local Fred Meyer (Kroger owned) today, I bought a Xing Green Tea and Ginseng. All other flavors were sold out. Not sure if that is good news, or bad, on a micro scale. Good to see them sold out, but bad that there weren't any on the shelf for people to buy at lunch time on a warm day. Distribution hiccup due to big expansion into other outlets? Could be anything, I suppose. Nice to hear they are going into convenience outlets, straight up against Arizona. I do think Xing cans are more attractively labeled.
AS a recent investor in NBEV (due to the unforeseen winds of chance), I have been motivated to try the products. I like them fine. The Bucha is ok, but too expensive for my pocket. Xing Tea is good, and priced such that I will buy it often. One question--does anyone know what drives the marketing of these teas (Arizona is the other one I see everywhere) in the 23.5 oz cans? It seems like a lot to drink at one time, so isn't an ideal size in my view. Are there just a lot of people that drink that much in a short time? Or is it because there is room vertically on the shelf that they can occupy? Volume/pricing enticement--see what a deal you are getting for your dollar, even though you don't finish the can? Just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.