Giovanni di Maggio

Giovanni di Maggio
Contributor since: 2007
Size does NOT matter in this case.
BTW afaik managers are paid to make profits, not to ride their comp into BK. Nothing augments an ego like a big paycheck and nothing hurts it more than being fired.
It's a risky thing to post a breakout prophecy just because 2 stocks ramped up a bit during a short breather of oil prices. Yes, oil was shortly above $30 again, but did you really believe that this meant anything mid term? Oil can very well see the low 20's before the 40's.
Just like some already mentioned, the breakout was to the down side. Most oil related stocks recovered partially to the end of today's session, but oil stayed below $30. Buying now for the long run because "you get paid (4%?) for waiting" is silly IMO if you cam buy these stocks at least 10% lower, which is 2.5 years of dividends. Probably the drop will be much more than 10% from here if oil does indeed go to $20 (nearly 30% from now).
Instead of buying now or setting any fixed buy limits (where?), it is much better to short these stocks while oil is drifting lower and set trailing stop buy orders for twice the amount, so you won't get overwhelmed when the bottom has been reached. Worst case you may be forced to buy well above the bottom which in any case you will never hit with any targeted buy order. Buy and hold is dead.
AXAS "double bottom" is not worth even a cent of my money. I don't like pump and dump schemes. This article was the pump. Buy the pumps if you want. A few days later always follows the dump.
Date of publication of this article: 12/24. The next trading day the price reached its peak of 1.26. Since then it has been dropping although OIL went up at least for a few days. If this is not the classic P&D pattern, I don't know anything about P&D.
Good luck with this stock while oil is dropping more and all other related stocks with it. This stock is a short as long as oil is a short.
I am not going to comment on your choices because I got tired while looking for the juice of this very lengthy article, so I did not finish it.
Just one thing: "latte" has no accent on the "e". I wonder where you got this from. English has no such accents at all nor does the Italian word "latte" (milk) have one.
Have a happy new year.
Some statements in this article made me scratch my head. In your first three bullets you seem to give short sellers and tax loss selling by end of year the responsibility for the drop in share price. In one paragraph you point to an alleged "double bottom" that would indicate that the stock won't go lower.
IMO this is just wishful thinking and a lack of consideration of the real underlying force which brought this stock down as it did with so many oil stocks: the price of crude. I am trading several stocks in this field, not necessarily only producers but also other business that depends on the well being of the producers. I have been quite successful with these trades as I watch several indicators minute by minute and one of them is the share price of OIL. Do yourself the favor and plot the chart of AXAS together with OIL and you will see an extremely strong correlation between both, with AXAS reacting much stronger on crude price variations than OIL. This will tell you that AXAS (surprise surprise) has not bottomed out until OIL has bottomed out. So this stock has no "bottom" in its own right but went below $1 a few days ago because we had a new low of crude, and it came back slightly with crude bouncing back. But how long will this bounce last? The glut remains and we may very well see new lows in crude and even for a prolonged time. If AXAS goes below $1 for a few months, do you know what NASDAQ will tell them? I don't like reverse splits, generally they don't do any good. There is a good reason why stocks around or even below $1 should not be considered "investments" but "speculation". Maybe there will be a short bounce due to short covering, but then? And what if this coverage coincides with another drop of the crude price?
@Alfidi:
Regarding your statement "Anything that's not quantum can add marginal capabilities but will not be a quantum leap" you may have chosen the wrong "gurus" to listen to and you may have stopped reading Wikipedia about quantum computing after the first lines, when you noticed this issue is way too complicated for your simplistic approach and scientific knowledge.
Besides what I said before about the state of the research, you may not have noticed that quantum computing is not a general replacement for traditional computing, as it can resolve certain problems faster by a probabilistic approach (which is its strength), but by far not all math problems.
Had you read beyond the first lines of the Wikipedia article, you would have found also this insight:
".. the interdependence between computing tasks and distributed representations suggests not only that quantum superpositions may be more efficient than classical distributed representations for some computing tasks, but also that the inverse may hold for other computing tasks.
The capacity of a quantum computer to accelerate classical algorithms has rigid limits—upper bounds of quantum computation's complexity. The overwhelming part of classical calculations cannot be accelerated on a quantum computer."
So we will need indeed other solutions for making computers faster.
@Technology Investing:
Your comment is on a much superior technical and scientific level than the original article. It is quite clear that the author has very little tech knowledge. While I personal have my own doubts about PTK's economic future, the tech reasoning of the author is somewhat ridiculous. He throws in terms like quantum computing which he obviously does not understand. The research of quantum computing, notwithstanding the first notions going back to the 1980s, is still in its infancy and any realization is still far away. Moore's law in silicon circuit has arrived at the end of the road and quantum computing will certainly not replace it for the foreseeable future. More, quantum computing has even in theory mainly advantages for certain algorithms and there are many theoretical problems that would have to be resolved before any universally usable quantum computer can be built. This can take decades, perhaps more than the construction of an industrial useful fusion reactor, which scientifically is much clearer and more technically advanced.
So, saying "Anything that's not quantum can add marginal capabilities but will not be a quantum leap" is just ridiculous and ignorant.
There will be other semiconductor solutions before that, given that the reduction in size of the Si integrated circuit structures has reached limits where tunneling and other physical effects start to make a further reduction impossible. GaAs may be such a solution. This does not mean that PTK is the company which will bring this technology to an industrial use. But their claim to be able to combine analog, digital and optical circuitry on the same substrate is appealing.
If their method is indeed valid, there may be a buyout at a much superior price.
I had been invested in PTK a while ago and made good money with it, without ever shorting it, just getting out at the right moment. I am still watching it, but with a lot of skepticism. The choice of buying a small amount and just forget it seems reasonable to me.
What keeps me from taking more risk than this is the simple question "why in all the time that they are publishing about and promoting their technology, has non of the big semiconductor producers or other tech biggies like IBM (who has significant scientific work in this field) simply bought the company for pennies on the dollar long ago?"
The simple answer in my mind is that they are well aware of POET and have researched its viability and they have not been convinced.
I am quite sure that POET has not escaped these companies' notice and that they have a lot more tech expertise than any of us and certainly more than Mr. Alfidi, to understand the importance of this development or the lack thereof.
Obviously this is even bugging people who firmly believe in POET and have invested significant amounts, so there are always rumors around that one of the biggies is already in contact with them. If this where true, we would certainly not be able to buy PTK for 0.84 CAD anymore.
IMO the chance to lose a lot of money (if you have invested tens of thousands in this stock) is significantly higher than to become a millionaire with it.
I have been playing with the stock from time to time, but would not invest more in it than what I am ready to lose.
There have been other companies that convinced me more of the validity of their product and which have gone belly up.
This pump is ridiculous. The stock is by no means to be considered a dividend stock.
Even a company with no earnings and no free cash can "pay" script dividends.
It's just dilution.
The key statistics in Yahoo tell me
1) Trailing P/E (ttm, intraday): 21.49
2) Forward P/E (fye Dec 31, 2016): 15.96
where is this under 14? Why would this be a deal?
3) dividend payout is 123.00%. Wow. I am looking for not more than 60%, possibly less than 50% in a solid divi stock.
4) Graham number "at first glance" (P/B=5.22) is $8.94 vs. pps of $14.68 today. Does not make me feel comfortable. Given that the Graham number as a valuation measure for the margin of safety is based on book value (5.22) and this number includes includes intangibles, at second glance there is no positive equity and thus not even a calculable GN. Excluding intangibles the net equity is $ -31,884,000.
@Pitti "Arguments should be encouraged."
And which are your arguments? "There is no climate change"?
How scientific is that?
CO2 climate isn't a gues, it's a fact. The conclusions may be a guess. The measurements are not.
Nice find, good comment 496.
There are cheap contactless thermometers for sale in every pharmacy. Do they have the scale to make their's cheaper? me don't think so.
Sorry, could you please repeat? Maybe terminating phrases with points. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I agree with jsmith9248
Good chance to buy some cheap shares. Results for HIV are good and this is by far not the only drug in the pipeline. As with all biotechs, patience is required.
I am in ONCY for 8 years now. Started accumulating around 2.50, added a lot in the low "ones" and sold enough in the exuberant "sixes" to have all free shares as it was obviously too early to fly so high. There would have been dilution that would bring it down again and I waited for that. Bought more again last year and this year on weakness. As robmx says, shorts are our friends. ONCY is at the same time an excellent long term play and a traders dream. Very predictable medium term, but patience is key. It feels good to see juicy gains on the horizon for the shares you hold as a base and to know that you will have made even a good deal if they went bankrupt right now (which they won't).
For those who are not there yet, now is the time to accumulate, maybe keep some cash to buy more in case they drop more.
Methinks one does not even have to wait for best appreciation until they have their product on the market because a buy-out by big pharma can happen anytime.
(Bio-)technically Hank and mpc723 are right, the virus is not modified. As to the note that Reolysin has been 'developed from a reovirus', this has to be read the way that Reolysin as an injectable carrier solution containing the live virus has been developed in a long process. It is quite tricky to maintain a virus live and in a controlled concentration for sufficient time in order to make it commercially usable. This is why Reolysin is much more than just a natural virus.
In order to argue in favor of nuclear energy there is no need to lie about or downplay the radiation damages that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs caused. You claim without proof that "
... the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced about 630 deaths from various cancers and leukemia. That's from the 90,000 survivors of the blast to this day.
The health of survivors has been monitored since the bombings in 1945. There have been an estimated 527 excess deaths from solid cancers and 103 from leukemia."
You don't quote your sources, typical for people who lie for propaganda reasons. You neither talk about people who remained infertile or had other non fatal radiation seizures nor the many malformed or dead children that were born from mothers who had received radiation.
There are many sources that prove you wrong, only one of them is Wikipedia which, opposite to you, quotes the sources:
"Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 from burns, radiation and related disease, the effects of which were aggravated by lack of medical resources, range from 90,000 to 166,000.[1][92] Some estimates state up to 200,000 had died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects.[93] Another study states that from 1950 to 2000, 46% of leukemia deaths and 11% of solid cancer deaths among bomb survivors were due to radiation from the bombs, the statistical excess being estimated to 200 leukemia and 1700 solid cancers."
Looks that these people don't count for you.
Another lie is that heavy accidents in nuclear plant happen once in some hundred of year. In my own lifetime I have seen several, the worst of which was Czernobyl.
This notwithstanding I agree that nuclear (fission) energy will be needed for a while and that the Uranium industry is not at all dead.
If they were serious, they would accept it. But Quoth is probably right. They won't.
Never mind. Those who understand the story and have been in this stock patiently for years (myself for 8 years now) have seen the drop as a chance to load up again. This company not only will eventually be worth multiples of what it is today even after the little runup, it has been a traders dream that allowed you to load the truck on the many dips and then take some off the table at the many peaks and reload again when others were scared.. Some of us have now many times the shares than we began with and not only have them all for free but even have already accumulated a nice profit. It's only those who don't know the company, its management and the details of the trials who lose on bearish drops. Shorters may have made some money shorting the peaks, but they will never have the fun to see the stock run to multiples of todays pps. What is our delight is their nightmare.
Happy shorting! ONCY up well over 60% this morning. Yesterday something must have leaked already because it went up steadily over the entire day, just to be clobbered down to a more moderate increase by two sales well below bid, 2 seconds after 4 p.m. Whaddayasay now? How much did you loose on this bet? Or did you get out in time yesterday?
Looking forward to your praising commenr "I told you so".
I guess you would qualify most scandinavian countries as "socialist". Indeed thay have many things US republicans despise. Nonetheless they are faring very well, far from "equal distribution of misery". Looks like people there are happier than US Americans if you can trust public polls and rankings. (http://bit.ly/QqLDmy)
So if the wealthy "produce" more than they consume, what did Romney "produce" by splitting up companies and selling the parts? Wasn't that destroying jobs? How does this help the working middle class? Doubling the armament expense seemingly would pour money into a part of the industry, thus creating jobs there. But what do they prioduce that would better the quality of life of the American people? Stuff that hopefully will never be used and just be scrapped after some time or, otherwise, will cost the lives of Americans and innocent civilians elsewhere. This was Romneys plan afaik. Was this really a viable alternative? And regarding "too many regulations", isn't corporate America governing whatever president has been elected? Isn't Monsanto doing whatever they want thanks to their narrowly knitted relations with the public administration (continuous exchange of executives between both)? Are we allowed to read clearly on food labels if the product contains GMO? This is only one example. And regarding regulations in minining and extracting industries, is it really better to accept cancers and other diseases caused by pollution than to regulate the environmental impact of these industries? It may be better for those who command these industries from a safe place, but certainly not for the workers on site and the people who live in that area. This could go on and on. Making money is good, but not at any cost.
As long as they are heavily subsidized with tax money, they are also a political question. It is a political question whether to pour tax money into a product that looks green only on the surface and overall is neither ecologically nor economically rational.
What about the cost of a new battery pack at the end of its life time, which will certainly be well before the end of life time of the car itself?
Only fools don't calculate the writedown into the cost of a car. BTW the $30k model is the one with the smallest battery. What do these people do when they have to do a longer trip? How long does it take to recharge a nearly empty battery in order to continue the trip after - how many - miles of travel? Rich people can afford a second car for longer trips. Yes, it remains a rich mans toy, they don't have to care about overall economy of a car.
I am absolutely no fan of Romney generally speaking and I think much can be done to save our environment and reduce consumption of fossile energy, but he has it right in this case. There are better ways to spend taxpayers money for environmental purposes.
And the low price that you are mentioning is not the result of a better economy (only 3% of the sales price annually is the saving of fuel cost according to your numbers), the rest of the reduction is taxpayers money - again. So while the acquisition may be affordable on the expense of other peoples taxes, these cars are a heavy burden for the national economy and do not really help save much CO2 unless the power mix available from the grid changes significantly.
Disclosure: I am neither short nor long Tesla and don't care where the stock goes.
This is how I would write if I were short the stock. I am not. If the USA will ever be self sufficient in oil it will not be for long. And the USA are only a tiny part of todays world.Neither BMW nor Toyota nor other firms rely just on the US market, they are building their cars for markets that are much bigger than the US market overall and some are even bigger taken alone. Petrol is depleting, it is just a question of time. Arab oil producing countries are planning on nuclear energy for the near future, this is telling.
Good luck to all shorts. Well, not really.
Sorry, wanted to say "the last comment", could not correct it in time.
IMO this stock will appreciate significantly above what it has done already after the acquisition of the new facility, as soon as they announce the already promised dividend. Of course we cannot know now how much it will be, so besides the valuation based target of slightly above 5$ (which does not even consider the increase of net income from the new facility) we cannot know which pps the dividend will dictate. I suggested a 35% payout which looks quite conservative compared to many "dividend kings", others expect a lower payout in favour of further expansion of the company. Whatever, a dividend will be paid after the new facility has been ramped up and is fully running. This is expected to happen within no more than 6 months, but is well within your timeline even if it happens somewhat later. So the best entry price is the one that you can get now. You may wait for dips, but you cannot know when and IF there will be dips. So if I had not the truck already fully loaded, I would buy part of the planned investment right now and then check how things go. You may be lucky to find some dip where to buy cheaper and you may have to buy at higher prices then. Nobody can forsee this. One thing is sure, right now the stock is still heavily undervalued by any means. My personal target price where I may unload part of my holdings is around $10 unless they expand further which would require a re-evaluation of my target. Anyway I will consider also the dividend yield then. If the stock will be fairly valued and pay a decent yield, I don't see any reason at all to unload anything unless I need cash urgently.
I don't see what the last few comments have to do with this article or with LPH at all. Seekingalpha should eliminate this spam.
What do you think how they managed to accumulate 110 million USD (700 M RMB) in order to buy the new 100 metric ton storage facility?
Net income did not get "somehow" "cancelled", it was used for investment and increased the book value. Nothing was lost.
So what is your point?
If you save your salary to buy a house, is that income "somehow cancelled" or what?
Just an addendum. If you read the most recent analysis of maxsoar financial (http://bit.ly/TE1oal) well, you will see that they did not base their target price on the increased net income but on the ttm eps of $0.62. If they applied the 83% capacity increase and thus the expected increase of revenues and net income, their target price would not be "between $5.18 and $5.87" but "between $9.48 and $10.74".
And remember that they used the comparative peer with the lowest multiples, just to be careful.
"The comparable company that has the lowest valuation multiples is Fortune Oil plc. To be extremely conservative, we decided to use this comparable company’s multiples to value Longwei ."
If you pay attention to the facts, LPH is not a gamble. Which does not mean that buying other stock may indeed be a gamble.
There has never been any.