Recs

9

3 Stocks Stopping the Presses

You saw the headlines. You know your stock price made a big move. But what does that portend for your investment's future?

By pairing the latest news with the collective wisdom of our 170,000-strong Motley Fool CAPS investing community, we might be able to discover whether your stock's latest exploits are a short-term hiccup -- or the start of a much bigger trend.

The following stocks have all made big moves recently:

Stock

CAPS Rating
(out of 5)

Change Past Week

XenoPort (Nasdaq: XNPT  ) *** 35.0%
China Shen Zhou Mining (NYSE: SHZ  ) *** 31.9%
Star Scientific (Nasdaq: CIGX  ) ** (25.9%)

Source: finviz.com, Motley Fool CAPS. Change from April 6 to April 13.

It's estimated that as much as 10% of the U.S. population has restless leg syndrome, a neurological disorder characterized by a need to move your legs to relieve the discomfort that overwhelms them. It often occurs at night just as the person is drifting off to sleep.

Dopamine-based treatments for Parkinson's disease, such as Merck's Sinemet, GlaxoSmithKline's Requip, and Boehringer Ingelheim's Mirapex, have been found to be effective in reducing symptoms in 99% of restless leg syndrome sufferers. Pfizer's (NYSE: PFE  ) Neurontin, an anticonvulsant used to treat seizures, is another successful restless leg syndrome treatment. Trial lawyers, however, have attacked many of the dopamine-related drugs as causing other problems.

Although XenoPort navigated the minefield of FDA approval for a modified-release formulation of Neurontin called Horizant, because the field is so crowded there seem to be limits to the revenues it can realize. There's talk of broadening the indications for which Horizant can be used, such as for post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), which Depomed (Nasdaq: DEPO  ) treats with another Neurontin offshoot, Gralise. Critics of the theory say XenoPort could only wrangle incremental growth out of it.

With the safety issues that originally prompted the FDA to issue a complete response letter to XenoPort for Horizant, CAPS member theslice says no doctor would prescribe it over Gralise:

Gralise label is 100 times better than Horizant, whose side effects are comparable to generic gabapentin. No doctor would prescribe Horizant over Gralise for something like PHN or pain(off-label). The very much reduced side effect profile of Gralise makes it much more attractive for older patients with PHN.

While XenoPort's stock initially jumped to over $11 a share, it has fallen 25% from those highs. Let us know on the XenoPort CAPS page whether investors will become restless looking for the next catalyst for growth.

A short course in poor PR
Sometimes the market is just nuts. Not manic, like Ben Graham said, but bat-guano crazy. Take, for example, the continued insistence by investors that China Shen Zhou Mining ought to benefit from the rare-earth element craze sweeping Molycorp, Rare Element Resources (NYSE: REE  ) , and other supposed plays in the space. The company mines fluorite, which while relatively rare, is not a rare-earth element.

In fact, in response to one analyst's contention that China Shen Zhou was another dangerous small-cap Chinese stock like others we've seen out of China lately, the company issued a shareholders letter that specifically says it's not a rare-earth-element company and has never pretended to be one (read it for yourself here). That the market continues to accord it rare-earth status indicates why it needs to be locked in the attic with its crazy uncle.

Highly rated CAPS All-Star TSIF thinks investors need to be sent to a re-education camp to understand the difference between fluorite and rare-earth elements:

GeeSHZ.....NOT AGAIN! Repeat after me people. You brush your teeth and flourinate your water with China Shen Zhou Minings product which they can barely extract at break even prices. They have no rare earths! They get mentioned in rare earth articles when rare earths are doing one of their own insane dances and off they go again. New bagholders who can't be bothered to do some DD. Flourite may help protect against tooth decay but China Shen Mining will produce a DECAY in an investors portfolio.

Head over to the China Shen Zhou Mining CAPS page before the rush to downgrade the stock when the inevitable correction hits.

No assurance on veracity
While the FDA did say Star Scientific's new "healthy" cigarette technology will not fall under the same regulations that govern cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco from Altria (NYSE: MO  ) and Reynolds American, as CAPS member expm1 noted, it's what it didn't say that may matter more:

The FDA has said that these products will not be regulated as tobacco. The FDA has not said what regulations the products will fall under. The possibility exists that the FDA will consider them un-registered drugs and stop Star from selling them.

With the markets selling down Star's stock since the approval was granted, it may be investors are taking that possibility into account. You can see if its hope goes up in smoke by adding Star to your watchlist.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Pfizer is a Motley Fool Inside Value recommendation. GlaxoSmithKline is a Motley Fool Global Gains selection. The Fool owns shares of Altria Group and GlaxoSmithKline. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.

Fool contributor Rich Duprey does not have a financial position in any of the stocks mentioned in this article. You can see his holdings here. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 15, 2011, at 10:49 PM, Invest4Gain wrote:

    I'm curious why the Fool is making riddles out of a FDA (Food and Drug Administration) notification to Star Scientific concerning their submittal for product approval?

    Wouldn't the FDA be responsible enough to clearly stipulate in their Letter of Notification if the products involved would be required to be resubmitted if other regulations applied?

    I'm at a loss with this, I came away from reading all the news releases that everybody, the FDA, the company, and the reporting media, are all in agreement that Star Scientific is free to take the products to market and along comes the Fool.com that says - "Oh no, it's not what's in the notifications that matter, it's what's not in the notifications that everybody should guess at that matters."

    Enough with the dark riddles, please. According to you every document in the world should be suspect of what's "NOT" in it, but, I don't think that's how it works, do you?

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Invest4Gain wrote:

    According to the inference made by the article above about Star Scientific (CIGX), that because the Fool.com owns shares in "Altria Group", as mentioned above, and because Mr. Duprey claims not to have any financial position, as indicated, in Star Scientific (CIGX) it would be safe to assume that both the Fool.com and Mr. Duprey hold "SHORT" positions in CIGX and the effort here is purely to bring doubt and fear to any investor or potential investor of CIGX.

    After all, according to this article, it's not what "IS" said in the arcticle or what "IS" claimed as disclosure, but, what is "NOT" said or disclosed.

    Shorting stocks is an investing strategy where the stock is sold using borrowed shares and because no shares are actually owned it would appear that it could be said there is no financial position as indicated above.

    Naked Shorting is where the stock is prematurely sold without any borrowed shares.

    So, according to the inference by this article, it would be safe to assume that whatever article you see on the Fool.com that has a negative tone of any sort that the author, on the Fool.com, holds a substantial short position or naked short position while the so called disclaimer says the author holds no financial position.

    And, the Yahoo Finance website links to these articles as "News Headlines".

    So, how about that for stock market manipulation?!

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2011, at 4:35 AM, TMFCop wrote:

    Invest4Gain,

    I think if you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see that it's not my opinion about CIGX per se but that of expm1. We allow all viewpoints on a stock.

    I also think if you look at much of my coverage of CIGX you'll see that it's tended to be generally positive:

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/03/24/3-stocks-sh...

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/03/21/youre-not-t...

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/03/16/whoa-why-di...

    So because I quote one investor who may not hold the same rosy outlook as you I'm now a hidden short? I think perhaps you should not become so emotionally attached to your investments that you can't accept someone saying something against it.

    And for the record, having a "financial interest" in the stock would indeed cover a short position, naked or otherwise. So, no, I am not short CIGX, not working with with some shadowy hedge fund group to drive down the stock, not being paid by those who would drive down the stock to buy it cheap, or any of the other conspiracy theories that populate Internet discussion boards on why -- horrors! -- someone might hold a contrary position about a company.

    Being so wedded to a stock that you can't handle a negative opinion without conjuring up all sorts of baseless claims as to why is definitely not conducive to your long term financial health.

    Rich

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Invest4Gain wrote:

    Mr. Duprey,

    You say my claims are baseless? Is the kettle black?

    If you have an opinion, you're welcome to it, but, in this case, you used another's opinion for your slanted article and now use him as the scapegoat, is this how it works?

    Posting links to any positive articles may only mean that you bought for the ride up?

    Next time you're in front of a judge for a speeding ticket tell him that Johnny says that the sign could really mean 50 instead of the posted 30 speed limit. OK?

    Your retaliation about my investing strategy is unbecoming because you don't even know what it is.

    Next time you author an article use your own opinion. Be your own person.

    Thank You

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2011, at 4:22 PM, dabster46 wrote:

    I have a question about your response. If your article was not designed to cast doubt and all that that would imply to the stock price, why did you choose to quote only one investor that happens to have a negative opinion of CIGX?

    If you had wanted to, could you of also found one investor to take a quote from that had a positive slant to the company?

    I understand your intent, I guess motives come into play in articles like this.

    You could of gone in any direction, naked shorts, unfounded articles, and the like, are trying to bring the stock price down.

    The rebound was nice though. I guess we won't be seeing an article about that though from your firm.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2011, at 6:43 PM, Shankapotamus wrote:

    Anybody blaming the share dumpage on shorts is forgetting what ran the PPS up... hype. If you bought the top and your position is underwater, don't get mad when people doubt the emperor's new clothes.

    The article claiming that Star has a cure for Alzheimer's is flat-out repulsive and should be where all your questions are directed. You can blame that author for your red position, not Duprey.

    This has to be biggest pump I've seen in a while.

    It's nice to see that Mr. Duprey didn't drink the CIGX koolaid.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2011, at 8:05 PM, TMFCop wrote:

    dabster46,

    Examining opposing points of view for a stock is a very healthy exercise, particularly for one you own. It allows you to revisit your own reasons for buying into a stock and determining whether the critique has merit. I do it all the time for my own stock holdings.

    Moreover, I'm also not afraid to be critical of any stock I own. Search the Fool for articles I wrote about an aesthetic laser company called Candela. Throughout the time I owned the stock, I excoriated management in published articles and questioned the veracity of what they were telling investors.

    Of more current holdings, I have questioned Best Buy's standing in consumer electronic's and the ability of Motorola Mobility to overcome the flood of tablets in the marketplace. The fact is I'm not so afraid of a negative comment about a stock I own.

    If it turns out to be true, then my investment thesis was wrong and I need to revisit why I missed the signal. If the opinion is wrong, even if my stock falls in the meantime, the truth will eventually reveal itself and the stock will recover.

    There doesn't have to be "motive" behind an article. And while bits and bytes seem limitless, there are even space considerations on the Internet. Interesting how no one complained that I wasn't bringing up contrary opinions in my more positive articles.

    While short sellers may in fact be trying to bring CIGX down, I have no knowledge about that. Aren't they always hoping some stock will fall? It doesn't have to mean though that every article that doesn't buy in 100% to the company line is in league with them too.

    And as Shankapotamus notes, some of the more bullish articles out there leave something to be desired. Was that one particular article simply trying to drive up the price?

    I wouldn't go so far as to impugn the author's motives, but did CIGX longs object to that? I doubt it.

    Thanks for reading and having a civil discussion.

    Rich

  • Report this Comment On April 18, 2011, at 1:58 PM, pardonme2 wrote:

    Clever! So if the truth be known, most of us trade stocks on what we don't know, we just don't know it, or would like to beleive that we know it all, rather foolish no matter how you trade it.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1476436, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/26/2012 3:50:11 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 6 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:00 PM
XNPT $5.88 Down +0.00 +0.00%
XenoPort, Inc. CAPS Rating: **
CIGX $3.98 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Star Scientific, I… CAPS Rating: *
PFE $22.13 Down -0.01 -0.05%
Pfizer, Inc. CAPS Rating: ****
MO $32.11 Down -0.15 -0.46%
Altria Group, Inc. CAPS Rating: *****
DEPO $5.49 Up +0.05 +0.92%
DepoMed, Inc. CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement