pumper_stumper
4 years ago
An old one, belongs here just to document. Posted after the 80% decline, and before the buyout. Most classic worst timing of any investor I've ever followed.
A broken Mastino speaks! He claims he is done! You mean 8 years and an 80% loss is all it took?.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"there is no value i can contribute here anymore
all said and done blew up by manipulators ... and they manipulate .. see the NTRA news release yesterday ... PRin a 3 week old 8K misleading as they are in partnership with ILMN for oncology ... and it works ..
dirk should do something for us here
we can not do a single thing for this stock ... controlled in full by shorts, manipulators
only news move this up
so i stop digging .. stop posting .. stop watching
very disappointed
holiday tomorrow
--------------------------------------
Dear mastino, First, there was no value of the "contributions" here for 8 years. Posting every positive article and banning or dismissing anything negative serves no purpose.
The typical penny stock "investor" blaming the stock decline on "manipulation" and shorts. How could anyone not see the last decade of financial results has perfectly related to the price of the stock?
pumper_stumper
8 years ago
Many of the the conference calls were transcribed and are still found online. How about quoting guidance, and I mean guidance, not optimism, from any of those transcripts here? You cannot, because once again, this company has not provided guidance.
Oh, and btw, have you noticed the stock performance since the small "insider buying" which we were told meant the stock was heading higher?
pumper_stumper
8 years ago
Not true. The removal from the Russell resulted in a 1 cent decline from the price 2 days before. Then, when the Supreme Court announced they were passing on the SQNM case, the plummet below $1 immediately started.
Removal from an index is advertised long in advance and market makers and arbitrage specialist set up in advance for the change, so that the actual day results in low volatility.
If a drop is needed before a recovery (I've never seen this discussed on any trading website before, so I'd like to hear where you have heard this from so I can research), perhaps we can drop to 50 cents, and then rise to 60 cents.
Bottom line, Sir Marty has been dead wrong on SQNM for over 5 years, and shows no sign of having a clue this year, just like any of the past 5!
pumper_stumper
8 years ago
We are now down 45% this year since that amateur analyst, Marty Chilberg, who has been bullish since the $5 range, told us on his free analyst blog that 2016 was going to be a "turnaround year for SQNM".
He posted bullish articles at $4.50.
He posted bullish articles at $4.00.
He actually met with the CFO (waste of time for the poor exec) and then posted bullish articles at $3.00.
He posted bullish articles at $1.60.
And all the way down, even going down to $1, he boasted about buying more shares, and advised others to do so.
And so the "turnaround year for SQNM" that he foretold, at the midpoint, is down about 45%!
You get what you pay for with analysts sometimes!
PineAppleExpress1
9 years ago
Pendulum has overcorrected to the left.
Do not believe this management team is interested in getting bought out. They have too good. Free lunches, free stock options, bonuses for negative growth, etc. They do not care about shareholders, that's obvious.
However, time for correction has arrived. Estd annual revenue for 2015 of $130M x 2 (conservative factor)= $260M valuation = $2.20/share = reflects fair price today.
Near term drivers:
1. If SQNM EnBanc hearing is accepted, should correct to $3+ quickly
2. Any hint about revenue growth, which is expected in response to new contracts for high risk market (despite price competition), growth in pool revenue, growth in reimbursement for average risk market will be a positive. Expect revenue to correct to $160M for 2016. Price should correct to $160M x 2.5 = $400M = $3.40/share
3. Announcement of new partner to finance Liquid Biopsy development and market penetration will be a big boost in the near term.
4. Cash on hand is estimated to be at $70M at year end 2015. Announcement of tighter cash burn controls (not to exceed $24M in 2016) with profitability projection by end of 2016 will be a major credibility booster. It will prove they will end 2016 with >$45M on hand obviating the need to issue a secondary offering in the near future.
Look for sentiment to change after next conference call.
pumper_stumper
9 years ago
I've read similar opinions, telling us that this ruling would be a blow to biotech. So, having read those opinions, similar to yours, I had a nice smile when the biotech index hit an all time high in the weeks following this latest ruling confirming that the patent is invalid.
To anyone who shares this uniformed view, once again, the market will make those with the wrong opinions pay, through losses! That is what capitalism is about. Rewarding those with correct opinions, while punishing those who just cannot grasp things. Investing can be mean, and SQNM investors are the first to know that... or.. they should, by now.
martych
9 years ago
I have no desire to have a perpetual debate about the merits of the disallowal of 540. As I said before, this is a very disruptive ruling to innovation in bio land if not everywhere. If this isn't clear to you so be it. By the way, I've never thought that this patent would be upheld, only that the ramifications of it not being upheld are very significant to innovation in the US. I'll end my involvement with another reference to the appeal doc:
This is likely to lead to two negative—and ironic—results. First, it will encourage researchers to keep secret the very “basic tools of scientific and technological work” this doctrine is designed to render into a public good for the benefit of scientific progress. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293. Before the panel’s decision, those engaged in basic research could freely disclose their fundamental findings, secure in the
knowledge that—as Judge Bryson and the Supreme Court put it—they were in an excellent position to claim practical applications of that knowledge as the first parties to hold it. Now, the only way to protect a previously unknown and field-changing invention like the ’540 patent is to try to keep the fundamental discovery a secret as long as possible. That benefits no one, especially in fields like medicine where collaborative sharing of basic research is so fundamental to progress and the timely development of life-saving interventions.
Relatedly, this decision threatens the incentive to invest in this area at all. Researchers in the life sciences can now have no confidence of the patentability of their new methods for diagnosing and treating medical conditions; indeed, even if their patents could somehow survive the panel’s test, uncertainty will undermine investment at the outset. Moreover, trade secrets may be impossible to maintain in this area because of the regulatory approval process. Accordingly, those seeking new vaccines, new uses for existing drugs, new noninvasive tests, or other biomedical innovations will quite likely conclude that the game is no longer worth the candle. And who could blame them: They could revolutionize their field, teach their colleagues a method that is the diametric opposite of the conventional wisdom, create a practical test that confers enormous medical benefits on society, have their research cited close to a thousand times, and yet still be denied a patent because their previously unknown method relies on too fundamental a discovery they made about the natural world. Neither scientists
nor venture capitalists will see much to gain in basic biomedical\ research.
pumper_stumper
9 years ago
I was just reading on that site that allows armatures to post "analysis" a bullish view on SQNM! Kind of funny that it is down about 50% since that was posted! I noted all the "atta boy" comments posted to the review!
You get what you pay for as they say. "Free" analysis by amateurs can cost your more than you ever thought!
We are nearing $2 here.
People that don't fully understand the law, and don't understand the logical reason why the patent was thrown out, get taught by the market, through the price changes. $2! After all, investing is all about the stock price when it comes down to it!
Those that fully understand and grasp the issues at hand can understand where the stock is headed. Those that don't, don't.
Same as it ever was, here, there or any stock.
pumper_stumper
9 years ago
I will repeat again, with more detail, as apparently more clarity is needed
The judge, Susan Illston of the United States District Court in Northern California, issued a ruling on Wednesday that the patent was invalid because it covered a natural phenomenon — the presence of DNA from the fetus in the mother’s blood.
The ruling was a sign that the Supreme Court’s decision in June declaring that human genes may not be patented because they are products of nature could make it more difficult to patent diagnostic techniques.
Judge Illston cited the gene patent case, which involved Myriad Genetics, in her ruling, along with a 2012 Supreme Court decision invalidating patents on a test used to determine the proper dosages of certain drugs.
“It’s hard to imagine patents on diagnostics surviving if that approach is taken,” Christopher M. Holman, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said of Wednesday’s ruling.
A very logical and reasonable ruling!
martych
9 years ago
Judge Linn wrote separately, explaining that he joined the result “only because [he was] bound by the sweeping language of the test set out in Mayo.” Linn Op. 1. In his view, “this case represents the consequence—perhaps unintended—of that broad language in excluding a meritorious invention from the patent protection it deserves and should have been entitled to retain.” Id. 2. Unlike the panel, he acknowledged Diehr, the Supreme Court’s endorsement of it in Mayo, and its applicability to this case. Id. 2-3. Nonetheless, he concluded that the language of Mayo, though unnecessary to the decision, seemed to compel a finding of ineligibility, id. 3—even while he made it emphatically clear that “Sequenom’s invention is nothing like the invention at issue in Mayo,” and there was “no reason, in policy or statute” to deny it eligibility. Id. 4-5
pumper_stumper
9 years ago
Actually, they did, and that was the reason for the denial, and the failure on appeal.
"The judge, Susan Illston of the United States District Court in Northern California, issued a ruling on Wednesday that the patent was invalid because it covered a natural phenomenon — the presence of DNA from the fetus in the mother’s blood."
How can this be any more clear? How can there even be a discussion on whether or not this was the reason for the ruling?