|
|
|
|
||
Re: hilarious drops 13 cents with less than 15 minutes to go SGMO crossed about the 200 SMA very early. A lot of day traders would have jumped in at that point. Being day traders they would have been wanting to get out by the end of the day and crowding the exit, hence the end of the day dip.
The SP held up very consistently well above the SMA 200 (except for one very brief sharp dip just below and then right back up just before noon) until the (more or less expected) end of the day dip which left the SP just one point below the SMA 200.
IMHO the prospects for today look good. If this trend continues the SP could be about 6.20 by the presentation (although a slowing down before then would be normal).
Note SGMO's upcoming analyst presentation got a mention on thestreet.com today in Adam Feuerstein's column. I'm NOT a fan of his (he often does hatchet jobs for clients wanting to buy in cheap, IMHO. But all he did was draw attention to 3 upcoming analyst presentations next week including SGMO's. (He only mentioned the HIV trial (interesting since one of the other companies was working on orphan genetic disorders which got a mention) but he's never been noted for the depth of his insight, IMHO.
It was neutral but should be good because it draws attention. The presentation will speak for itself.
With a good presentation the SP could get a hefty boost. OTOH if it is considered disappointing it could drop back down. (I don't trade in and out so the short term SP changes don't mean much to me except insofar as they establish solid and stable changes). All JMHO, of course.
OFF TOPIC :
PS Sorry for getting so deep off topic yesterday. But some things very urgently need to have attention drawn to them when the topic comes up. (and it actually was a bit relevant: one of the most important potential of SGMO's technology IMHO is the potential to make medicine vastly more effective than it currently is. (the transition won't be instant, but probably steadily increasing efficacy as the technology matures). Think about it: all it takes for a drug to pass clinical trials is to have a statistically detectable (i.e.: better than 95% chance that the results were NOT merely due to chance) effect. Not of a cure, or 100% effective treatment but of a detectable (and often very minor) effect: i.e.: if 10% of patients get a minor benefit (so minor it takes a very expensive clinical trial to prove it) it's a "good drug". THAT IS A VERY LOW BAR! (SO low that we often find, after enough experience to identify the problems, that the problems outweigh the benefits.)
Gene therapy and gene regulation therapy has deeply inherent potential to be much more effective than most current approaches in a great deal of cases. (but don't expect it to work for everything, or even close to it!)
Where the real root cause is an environmental exposure NOTHING will be as effective as removing the exposure: heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and a lot of things not even currently suspected*1. (none of them in all cases but all of them in most cases). (a lot of medicine has a considerable degree of "blaming the victim")
============
*1 keep your eye on hernias (think ulcers and helicobacter pylori: can't POSSIBLY be connected, right? Medical thinking: I can't think of any way it could be connected, therefore it can't be. Meidcal doctors are NOT scientists, they are technicians and they think like technicians and not remotely like scientists. (as always, there are a few exceptions (and if you're lucky enough to find one, DON'T lose him/her!) |
return to message board, top of board |