With this type of reasoning, no one would ever invest in a start up company that requires capital to build it's business. No one would ever invest in research and development because they won't be making any money during the start phase.
You don't afford a valuation of a mature company to a start-up company. There is a price to pay for being a start-up, yet many start-ups didn't realize that during the boom, as evidenced by the ridiculous money spent on lavish offices and office parties to name a few things. Pre-2000 and to a large extent with current valuations of companies like CORV, there is no risk factor being accounted for the "start up" nature. I call CORV a start-up because the fact that it went public doesn't make it a mature company by any means. Greedy bankers have shortened the life-cycles of their IPO's to less than 3 quarters in some cases (Pets.com a great example). These companies expand too fast for the sole reason of going public and hence have completely flawed models. The ideas are great, the models are not. Do you really think it was appropriate for CORV to be valued more than a JP Morgan when it had no revenues - a mere 9 months ago? Do you think it's appropriate for this company to be valued more than $3 billion with it's current revenue stream and a major IT recession?
If you want to day trade the momentum of this sector, good for you. There are others out there who will "invest" in a company like CORV because they believe that their research and development will create (or has created) a product that will make money in the future. The all optical network requires new technology, technology that CORV claims to have right now..
Crap, pure crap. How much money will CORV make on these wonderful products? What is the anticipated market size? Your speech is the same crap that these idiot analysts were pulling when they were taking cash flows for companies like AMZN or even CSCO until 2009. Who the heck knows what the world will be in 2009? The cyclicality and vicious competition in the tech market is what makes it SO DANGEROUS and hence these stocks should be afforded valuations closer to Steel and Airline companies. In reality there is little differentiation in hardware. Software, yes, hardware no.
The first companies to market will have very few customers, initially. Look at CORV's customer list, it's pretty small at the moment.
No duh. What's your point?
You have stated your belief that CORV won't be a profitable company in the future, therefore you are shorting until the 'pennies'. It will be interesting to see who's more accurate, you or those who have invested in the future!
Do you think CORV is the only short in the sector? WCG, LVLT, SCMR and the others in this sector, are they also 'penny stocks'?
Dude, why don't you just marry CORV? Have kids with it. I would short CORV because I don't have faith in the management team and I think it's bloody overvalued. The key to making money, which I have made more of than you, I can assure you, is to not fall in love with your stocks. By the looks of it, you obviously have lost a lot of money in this stock and have probably been spewing this same B.S. all the way down. |
