Why CalAmp Corp. Shares Plummeted Today

Although we don't believe in timing the market or panicking over market movements, we do like to keep an eye on big changes -- just in case they're material to our investing thesis.

What: Shares of CalAmp Corp. (NASDAQ: CAMP  ) plunged nearly 23% Friday after the wireless communications specialist turned in disappointing fiscal fourth-quarter 2014 results.

So what: Quarterly revenue rose 24% year over year to $59.8 million, including 32% growth in Wireless Datacom sales and a 4% decrease in satellite revenue. This translated to adjusted net income of $7.1 million, or $0.20 per diluted share. Analysts, on average, were looking for adjusted earnings of $0.21 per share on sales of $61.49 million.

In the current quarter, CalAmp expects revenue in the range of $56 million to $60 million, with adjusted net income per share in the range of $0.17 to $0.21. By contrast, analysts modeled adjusted earnings of $0.23 per share on sales of $64.3 million.

Now what: CalAmp CEO Michael Burdiek blamed the guidance shortfall on an expected revenue decline of roughly $3 million from a "key OEM customer in the solar power industry," as well as a continued "slight" sequential decline in Satellite revenue. Even so, Burdiek insisted they anticipate the second half of this fiscal year will be stronger than the first, thanks primarily to CalAmp's emerging insurance and heavy equipment customers. This should drive CalAmp's adjusted earnings per share to increase year over year by roughly 30%.

That's fair enough, but I still prefer to let the dust settle before diving into CalAmp stock. For now, I'm perfectly happy leaving CalAmp on my watchlist to keep tabs over the next few quarters on how its long-term prospects pan out.

The biggest thing to come out of Silicon Valley in years
In the meantime, there are plenty of other great tech stocks out there in which you can put your money to work. To be sure, if you thought the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad were amazing, just wait until you see this. One hundred of Apple's top engineers are busy building one in a secret lab. And an ABI Research report predicts 485 million of them could be sold over the next decade. But you can invest in it right now... for just a fraction of the price of AAPL stock. Click here to get the full story in this eye-opening new report.


Read/Post Comments (129) | Recommend This Article (28)

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 25, 2014, at 3:30 PM, johnatkinsond wrote:

    That's funny, This weeks "Rule Breakers" a premium service of the Motley Fool, is recommending CAMP and states that it owns it in their po

    rtfolio...............

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 3:40 PM, mmmm101 wrote:

    that's correct, so why are they saying they don't own it? could be a mistake, if so, what do we do now? double up? if MF loved it at 40% higher they must be inthralled by it now, yes? on sale, right?

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 3:44 PM, bosron100 wrote:

    I find it interesting that this was the STOCK OF THE YEAR.I know we are in this for the LONG TERM but a lot of the recent recommendations are NOT doing well.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Pass2srf wrote:

    I bought this based on the "stock of the year" designation. What a fool I am. I figured if it was so good to be the SOTY if would n't TANK like it has. time to find someone who knows a thing about stocks.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 3:57 PM, rickf101 wrote:

    where do you see calamp in this week's issue of Rule Breakers, John?

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 4:05 PM, doublee101 wrote:

    Its not in this weeks RB, but it was previously for sure. I find this attitude by MF very fishy as well.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 4:06 PM, zoopsia63 wrote:

    From what I recall, CAMP was touted as the stock to own for the long term. My buy price was 29.44; I'm deep underwater and too late to sell. I will stay with CAMP for the long term rather than take the paper loss.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 4:27 PM, jkovac wrote:

    Yes, it seems another rule breaker that you guys will not be mentioning among David Gardner's multizillion baggers when you are going to be sending me e-mails promoting your subscriptions. One of too many unfortunately. If you guys at least owned up to your mistakes.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 4:30 PM, wazeldazel wrote:

    BUY!

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 4:32 PM, 76R906 wrote:

    So CAMP loses almost a quarter of its value (and my investment) because some analysts - who know nothing and produce even less - guessed revenues higher by a penny?

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 4:34 PM, jkovac wrote:

    CalAmp is down more than 33% since you guys promoted it as the next top secret stock that is going to change the industry and the world and is going to make us rich. What is really disappointing is that you never bothered to send the report that you do not own it anymore and maybe we should not either. I guess I should rather not buy "Apple's new core" either.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 4:35 PM, chaspy wrote:

    I am new to Motley Fool, and purchased two recommendations, Camp and The container store, based on the stock of the year selections. I guess my hesitation in signing up over the years was correct. Never have I suffered such a capital loss as with these two stocks. I will hang on, taking a loss in a tax deferred account makes no sense of this magnitude (cost basis 31.20 a share).

    TCS cost basis 39.50. When my basic subscription runs out, I will not renew. Motley fool investment style just does not fit with my own.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 4:36 PM, judithirene wrote:

    Stock of the Year?????

    It looks like it has to do a lot of climbing to even get back to the price at which it was recommended!

    Sure wish I hadn't bought into It. Even if it eventually rises to cost basis, It ties up funds that could be used instead for rising or dividend

    funds.

    Judy

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 4:42 PM, jkovac wrote:

    By the way the stock did not loose a quarter of its value today because it missed estimates of some analyst by a cent. It lost a quarter of its value because some investors were willing to dump a lot of it's shares at almost any price.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Dagoldbaum wrote:

    Bought the stogk at $31 and change after MF recommended this as stock of the year.Being the Fool I am,I'm not selling, but buying some more to bring my average cost down.This way, Iwant to make sure my grandchildren will have a chance to the possibility to see a capital gain in CAMP!!!!!

    They will then be able to bragg to their friends about what a great investor their grandpa was.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Lpolena wrote:

    I started to build a position at $28 after the Stock of the Year recommendation. After reading Steve's comments above, I think I am going to hold off for a while. I am also surprised he doesn't mention anything about their earlier recommendation.

    Averaging down is a good thing - throwing good money after bad is not. It's hard to tell which situation this is right now.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Lew4 wrote:

    Motely Fool has unbelievable nerve to say "we don't own it and will watch it for now" when it is your "Stock Of the Year" pick. Today your company presented itself dishonestly and lost all validity. You can't play it both ways without publically lying to "save face". Shame on you and your company!

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 5:24 PM, joycedw37 wrote:

    extremelly disappointed I believe Motley owes us an explanation.

    i not only bought 1000 shares but encouraged my family to buy as well.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 5:28 PM, doublee101 wrote:

    An interesting thing I just noticed: I am going through all the MF emails looking for the BIG PICK for 2014 and you know what? When I click on it, it just directs me to the website homepage, the 'content' has apparently been pulled??

    I would recommend you do the same and see if you can find it, and if so please post it.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 5:35 PM, cnidog wrote:

    The whole market was down. I am a newbie, but my understanding of the Fool investing plan is to consider a 3 year hold as minimal. That leaves another 1094 days to go. As Gust told Charlie in Charlie Wilson's War, "And the Zen master said we'll see."

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 5:42 PM, dooley wrote:

    pump and dump?

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 5:43 PM, MEDULA wrote:

    I owned it and when it dropped down over 15%, I sold it. Often times,when you are in a losing position, and you have pre set sell rules, use a stop loss to prevent these types of hits. I don't care who recommends the stock, only allow stocks like these to have a low allocation, so if does drop, and you don't have stops on, you won't take a bad hit. I would only commit 2-3% of my portfolio to stocks like these. Diversification is your friend.

    Medula

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 5:47 PM, doublee101 wrote:

    CNIDOG:

    Yes but MF apparently didnt own it at all, is my impression. That is why people are PO'd.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 5:59 PM, BillFromNY wrote:

    I've been a member of Rule Breakers for a few years. David Gardener is really a good stock picker. When he recommends a stock, it usually leaps upward maybe just because he picked it.

    But after you buy, you're on your own. Don't expect MF to tell you anything except "it's still on our recommended list so we currently recommend buying it" despite the fact that the price has gone so high that even the most liberal judge of valuation would would warn you that sometime in the near future the stock is going to have a painful correction.

    This has been of their worst years ever. Intuitive Surgical, the poster child stock for David and RB that tripled within a couple of years and still went up, A few weeks ago it tumbled down the side of a mountain on bad news. Then when it looked like it was struggling back on to its feet it released an awful earnings report and fell off a cliff.

    Then one of David's personal favorites and a subject of one of those special reports, LinkedIn, became wildly overpriced. No matter how good the future looked, there was going to be a painful correction that a lot of inexperienced investors cannot tolerate emotionally if not financially.

    Then there's this stock of the year, CAMP, which was supposed to bring down, I can't remember what, the Internet or television or Ben and Jerry's.

    But the ISRG debacle points to one of the strengths of MF. Actual surgeons who use their da Vinci robots go on to the message boards and share what they know, which is a hell of a lot more than any shareholders or analysts. Last week a surgeon named Gatorswamp posted at length on the ISRG board. He was basically saying that he has used the product but no longer does, likes the product, but it is too expensive for hospitals to buy right now and is not considered necessary to give patients the best care. I'm sure some people who read that warning sold on it and were saved from this week.

    Nobody escapes the bull forever. Just a tough year. MF will survive and thrive.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:05 PM, jiminland wrote:

    Diversification is key:

    LNKD from 217.00 now 158.00

    DDD from 62.00 Thought it was a bargain 49.60

    YNDX from 29.00 now 24.00

    SINA in and out Thankfully I didn't hold this dog for the long term Was 90.00 in January now 49.15

    XONE from 65.00 to 31.00

    MELI from 140.00 in October to 87.20

    AMZN from 450 to 303.00 I KNOW TMF bought it a 3.00.

    IRBT

    INVN

    SWIR

    AVAV

    WPRT

    ISRG

    I just can't wait to see what Monday brings. :(

    My first ever post on TMF

    A little VENTILATION

    Owning more than 6 shares of these stocks is overallocated:(

    Completely my fault as I understand fully. These stocks will continue to fall until everyone with more than 6 shares will sell in complete disgust.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Lew4 wrote:

    My Objection is Motley Fools' dishonesty of presenting a stock as the "Stock of the Year" and then when it is tanking to say "we don't own it and will watch it for now". If as CNIDOG stated they have a long term view, then they still own it. This article attempts in a deceitful way to imply that they have always been "watching" their Stock of the Year! If they had said although we recommended this stock in the past, it is time to sell and wait on the side lines they would have continued to have my respect. Unfortunately, like foolish liars, they attempted to cover their tracks and have taken the low road.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:25 PM, mwwhitehurst wrote:

    Here's the link to the 12 Stocks to Outsmart the Market Today: http://g.foolcdn.com/art/download/Stocks2014/stocks2014.pdf

    I bought this and Weight Watchers from the list. Of course, both have tanked. The Fools are making me become a long-term investor, because most of the recommends that I have purchased have tanked.

    I hope to give a more positive update sometimes in the future.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:33 PM, jiminland wrote:

    Hold for 300 years

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:38 PM, jiminland wrote:

    I posted my first ever post at 605 pm. Then I posted a second time, and then a third post at 6:33 PM,

    Where is my second post between 6:05 PM and 6:33 PM?

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:38 PM, Ric5253 wrote:

    I think we should all get are money back from the head FOOLS

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:40 PM, klausw55 wrote:

    YES, YOU FOLKS ARE ALL RIGHT. THE RB AND SA RECOMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN LITERALLY DEVASTAKING. ANYTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER THAN BUYING THEIR RECOMMENDED STOCKS. I FEEL LIKE AVE BEEN BACKED INTO A CORNER WITH NO WAY OUT. I GUESS THE OLD ADAGE OF THINK FOR YOURSELF IS TRUE. NEXT TIME I WONT LISTEN TO ANYBODY ELSES ADVICE, AMEN.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:45 PM, jiminland wrote:

    the most unsettling thing is that the overall market is within a whisker of all time highs. Many of the stocks recommended here are off 50% What happens when the market corrects?

    another 50% to go. That's a total correction of 75%

    Haven't seen that since 1929. The market corrected 90%

    Correction = Crash

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:48 PM, BlackhawkBob wrote:

    I am with Chaspy, I fell for your pitch. Having done pretty well on my own, a WSJ article lured me in with reports on the success of MF newsletter picks. Shame on me. MF membership will NOT be renewed.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:54 PM, jiminland wrote:

    Why the Next 300 Years Are Crucial to the Success of Your Family

    that's the length of time it takes for the best stock holding period to mature.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:57 PM, jiminland wrote:

    "Completely my fault as I understand fully. These stocks will continue to fall until everyone with more than 6 shares will sell in complete disgust."

    Sirca, 2056, I've owned this stock forever and it's now a 10000000% win. I will sell 1 share a year over the next 4 years to liquidate the best investment ever.

    Barry Buffet

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 6:58 PM, jiminland wrote:

    No more venting, turning of computer.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 7:03 PM, truthitseems wrote:

    I bought a subscription to MF in October of last year. Had never really traded stocks. Bought NOV and CBOE and GOOG. NOV and CBOE went straight down. Google did well for a while. I bought Camp at $31 then sold for a $2 loss. I have now sold out of everything and have shorted QQQ and SPY and EEM ( biggest short here) Stick with me here....

    In regards to MF, it is pretty cleat they made a lot of their "money" by buying high beta stcoks in a rallying market. This, combined with a growing subscription base, perpetuated a self-fulfilling prophecy as more and more readers were there to buy their recommended stocks. My point is this: if the market sells off, I would estimate that the MF stocks will vastly underperform. If the market continues to rally, the MF stocks will probably vastly outperform as in years past. It's my, perhaps naive, conclusion that you take a view on the market as a whole and stick with it. i have made my bets. Best of luck to all. I will be cancelling my subscription to MF on Monday. I wish the MF luck. I began reading their stuff in 2002 and waited to 2013 to subscribe. I have run my course. Best.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 7:06 PM, wmcgee353 wrote:

    I feel everyone's pain here I have 135 shares at 30.10 cost basis, but seriously all, when the MF recommended this back in December or January, the timeline suggested was about 5 or 6 years. We've seen it before, this stock can go up as fast as it goes down. We're only about 120 days out from the recommendation. Chill out folks.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 7:12 PM, doublee101 wrote:

    And it seems they have told poor Steve the author of this uh, 'informative' piece to deliver the bad news to subscribers. Now Steve is a nice guy no doubt but I read his profile above and I will guess he is in his upper 20's and it says he has been covering tech for MF since.....2013 (!) I will wager on a freelance basis.

    Now that is a service worth paying for....

    Will be canceling as well. I wonder if they still even own INVN.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 7:22 PM, doublee101 wrote:

    WMCGEE353:

    Again, MF apparently has no position in CAMP, thats the problem. The question is: why not and why was it promoted in the first place.

    According to this article they dont own it because they dont believe in it any more.

    Stocks go up and they go down, thats not the issue here and MF obviously cant predict the market, not their fault. But the question remains: what is this service worth when they dont stand behind their recommendations and worse still give no heads up to paying subscribers when they themselves dont want to own CAMP?

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 7:35 PM, dbarnacle wrote:

    So why didn't any of them buy this stock? They strongly pushed it, but no one at the MF had skin in the game? One can't help but question their methods.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 7:44 PM, anathestalker wrote:

    Let me clear something up,

    $Camp was not a RB recommendation. I can attest to this. Yes, long term action is in tact. If any of you listened to the earnings call you would understand why they missed.

    That is to be expected at times. I think for a company expected growth over 25% yoy, with this type of multiple is a BUY now!

    I am aware this must sound like a joke but I am not. This is the best time to buy. Better than $30.where I started my position. My full position is avg around $25. This is fine by me. I don't expect a similar miss next quarter. I think this stock will be up in the 21-22' range within 3 months which is next quarter.

    my 2 cents.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 7:52 PM, mac2809 wrote:

    This is the ONLY stock I used from TMF. I about it in the low $20's after reading their free report. The other 2 I chose on a whim. I admit, I am no expert on stocks but I do hold a degree in econ. So the other 2 have been doing fine, slow growth but still around the 3% quarter target.

    So when CalAMP was going down a little bit, I thought it was because of Janet Yellen's and is natural. What I didn't expect was to come home and find out a 23% fall. That cost be about $70.00.

    The I don't want an apology because this was totally my choice. What I DON'T want though is The Motley Fool to send me constant e-mails AFTER ACTING LIKE THEY DIDN'T ADVISE US TO BUY IT. Look, under the "article" they have another marketing box talking about the "end of internet."

    Since your on thsi article, I assume you were like me and duped by TMF. I am personally going to report TMF on my GMAIL as a Phising MSG so TMF will never send me another e-mail. I advice everyone to do the same. If this had been a personal stock broker, they would have been repremanded.

    We deserve better than this. Should have listened to the experts about TMF.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 8:02 PM, doublee101 wrote:

    MAC dude,

    If youre only out 70 bucks, please.

    Several many thousand here and I think thats more the average here.

    70 bucks? Count yourself very lucky, and maybe you may want to think about starting your own advice service and may well do just as well as MF, and to be honest most if not all of the other pay sites as well. I am going to pay more attention to Morningstar and Fidelity and the other fund sites as they tend to be conservative and less speculative which very often seems to be the smart move.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 8:14 PM, doublee101 wrote:

    And may I say one more thing and then I will shut up for the night: Poor Steves article comments section is the ONLY active area re CAMP on MF site to be found. Pretty much ignored on the 'boards' there.

    So Steve, I thank you for that at least.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 8:50 PM, golf1239 wrote:

    Fool is very disingenuous. They are perpetuating a lie. First it is the stock of the year. Second they recommend in their own website and now say they are just watching for future purchase. Excuse me what the heck is that all about. Maybe a play on words but a lie. This is the 4th stock I have purchased on their recommendation that has tanked in 6 months.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 9:01 PM, jra3h9 wrote:

    When you guys (TMF) completely existed your position in your STOCK OF THE YEAR, (just four months into the year!) I think you had the moral obligation to inform your email subscribers. I have always enjoyed the free content and realize its point was to drive future sales of services, which I WAS considering. I didn't lose much on CAMP, but I will NOT be signing up for any services in the future.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 9:03 PM, TMFInnovator wrote:

    Hi Everyone -

    My name is Simon Erickson, and I'm one of the analysts on the Rule Breakers team. After reading several of the comments above, I'd like to clarify a few things about both CalAmp and our service.

    First, as a point of clarification, CalAmp is not an official RB recommendation. We did mention it in a special feature, and it was also profiled in the Motley Fool's "Stocks 2014" report. However, it isn't technically correct to call it an official recommendation of our services.

    Secondly, and much more importantly, I urge everyone to separate a single day's price action from a company's long-term opportunity. There are countless examples of stocks that investors left for dead during rough times, only to miss out on hundreds or even thousand percentage points of gains during the following years. Often times, the price drops were not even indicative of true weakness in the business.

    Said another way -- Is CalAmp's business really worth 25% less today because they missed analyst estimates by one penny per share? Or -- Did you still have a negative sentiment toward CalAmp two days ago, before the stock's 25% decline? (By the way, it's perfectly okay to answer "yes" to that question. Just don't change your mind only because the stock price fell.)

    Several analysts (myself included) still believe that CalAmp THE BUSINESS has a massive opportunity in front of it as machine-to-machine communication continues to take form. Having spoken personally with their CEO recently, I think they are doing an excellent job of bringing quantifiable value to their customers and have a clear vision of what they would like their company to look like in 5 years.

    All of that said, my crystal ball is broken. I can't tell you what the stock price will look like tomorrow. Or the next day, or even one year from now. But as individual investors, one of the greatest advantages we have is the ability to tune out the short-term noise -- be that price movements or quarterly earnings expectations. At Rule Breakers, we plan to continue to focus on finding innovative companies that have the opportunity to outperform for years -- not days -- in the future.

    Fool on!

    Simon

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 9:08 PM, shellawr wrote:

    Your stepping away from your recommendation of camp as stock of the year and comparing it to other of your selections is an extreme example of misrepresentation. Your record is now blemished and I will consider canceling my subscription good through 2015. To make matters worse you crashed your website reference to camp for nearly a full day after the news from camp earning hit the news tape.----shellawr april 25

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Lz wrote:

    S & p capital report ( on 4-2014) calamp fair value at 18.70 and CAMP SCORED 89% HIGHER than all companies for which an S&p report is available!! However since march technical indicators for camp have been bearish. In addition had you invested $10,000 in this company 5 years ago you would have $267,727 - as of less than a week ago! This is an excellent time to purchase more and then look at it again in 5 years :-) the fundamental view for communication equipment is obviously positive and that's not going to change just because the stock dropped in price -there will most likely be accelerated equipment funding related to the 7 billon government broadband stimulus plan and priorities have shifted to the wireless side which since calamp is a growing wireless data com business should capture big future profits and after reviewing a lot of analysis I'm buying twice what I originally bought - within a year it should be back at what I originally bought it at - 25- and with a pe of 23 and earnings of 1.29 - it should be back at around 30 in a year and a half - should make a very nice profit within two years - better than my apple stock :-) I'm going for the long haul - here is a presentation from the camp investor relations which I thought was good http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9N...

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Chrisk51 wrote:

    I bought more CAMP. after looking at the earnings for the last 6 quarters up pretty much every time. earnings of .22 in one quarter. was .12 a few quarters ago. at that rate. it could be .25 in 6 months from now. lots of stocks have pe's of 20 to 30 . I think it could go back pretty quick. with a couple good quarters.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 9:18 PM, jra3h9 wrote:

    Simon, why tout CalAmp as STOCK OF THE YEAR if it's "not an official RB recommendation"?

    Also, how much of return did Tom Gardner make on Amazon again? I only get 5 emails a day telling me.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 9:30 PM, ehabdurzi wrote:

    toTMFInnovator

    How exactly is it that the #1 stock recommendation for 2014 isn't an "official RB recommendation".

    Isn't that something that would would automatically include it in

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 9:30 PM, doublee101 wrote:

    "First, as a point of clarification, CalAmp is not an official RB recommendation. We did mention it in a special feature, and it was also profiled in the Motley Fool's "Stocks 2014" report. However, it isn't technically correct to call it an official recommendation of our services."

    This is classic talking both sides out of your mouth, thanks the clarification.

    It took pulling teeth to get any comment, thanks for your time.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 9:56 PM, ffraley wrote:

    For those who said the "Top Stock for 2014" report on CalAmp disappeared:

    I could not find the report in the special reports section of the MF website just now (but I find locating the reports on the website is often difficult).

    However, I just clicked on the e-mail that I received offering that report, and the link took me straight to the report.

    Here is the url: http://www.fool.com/free-report/stock-advisor/the-motley-foo...

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 10:35 PM, SlimDudley wrote:

    My first post here. I thought the price drop a big over-reaction today and bought some more, however I am bothered by the TMFinnovator reply with the comment that CAMP isn't an official MF rec. How can Andy Cross call it his top stock for 2014 in hyping it, yet it not be an official recommendation?

    I hope the stock price does well, and if it does, won't TMF then claim it as one of its recommendations in future hype publications? Until someone can explain it differently I'm of the opinion that TMF's credibilitly took a hit along with CAMP's stock price today.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 10:49 PM, foolishmoney wrote:

    I'm about $4k underwater since purchasing CAMP after reading the 2014 Stock of the Year. I've been looking for news about it in the 10% Promise, and guess we won't see anything about it since it wasn't recommended. Am I disappointed, yes. Will I renew? Not sure about that yet.

    But after taking a beating over the first few months of this year on several other SA recommendations, and reading SA since last summer, you can see TMF seems to prefer expensive Momentum stocks. These stocks clearly are a double edged sword that cuts quickly both ways. And TMF is probably losing money now also (except for CAMP) by their own recommendations. I am still long, and have added to many holdings as the slump has continued. But I think any new money I put into stocks now will be a little less flashy and a little more stable than the "momo" stocks in the headlines on TMF. It's fun to be aggressive when prices are going up... not so much when they dive.

    We all need to do our own research and make our own decisions, and realize that what is right for TMF may or may not be right for all of us (or correct for that matter). They are just one opinion. And all this damage may right itself over the long term, but I'd be more comfortable seeing some "hold" signals on slumping recommended stocks instead of the persistent "buy" signals because we just interviewed the CEO and he is a nice guy, while the stock in mention falls further and further, month after month.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2014, at 11:34 PM, wolfhounds wrote:

    The company misses by a penny and forecasts a slightly lower 1st qtr. than analysts liked. It sells off 24% despite management saying income will rise about 30% for the whole year; about in line with analysts .96 forecast. More importantly, it's major business lines showed increased penetration, higher margins and cash flow. It has no debt and is developing leading edge products. And now sells about 20x fiscal 2015 earnings. And the cry babies I read here don't seem capable of doing much of their own analysis (MF gives you the tools) or they would buy on this typical over reaction.

    I certainly don't know what the stock price will say a year from now, but I'm no less convinced that in 5 years this company's products will lead to improving margins, earnings and FCF. The stock price will take care of itself. I put my money where my mouth is and doubled down at the close. After some of you have invested for 35 years you'll be able to see through the panic.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 12:06 AM, TMFInnovator wrote:

    Sorry if our organizational structure is a bit confusing. Let me see if I can try to help clear things up..

    We offer monthly stock recommendations through our premium services (such as Stock Advisor, Rule Breakers, etc). If a stock becomes an official recommendation of a specific service, that service adds it to a scorecard and tracks its progress against the market.

    In addition to that, the Motley Fool also issues an annual premium research report -- which is a collection of ideas from several different analysts. The latest, "Stocks 2014" (thank you for the link ffraley), does specifically highlight CalAmp. But please note that a stock discussed in this report is not the same thing as an official service recommendation. That is what I mean when I say that CalAmp is not an official RB ("Rule Breakers") recommendation.

    Anyway, the more important part -- which I hope came through clearly -- is to focus on the business rather than the stock price. I too felt the frustration today when I saw CAMP so deeply in the red. But one thing about the Motley Fool as a community is that we can learn things from one another. I would much rather read a comment that was critical of CalAmp's business performance, rather than just calling it a bad company because its stock price took a hit.

    That's the main point that I'm trying to hammer home here. I hope that this helps in some way.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 12:10 AM, mac2809 wrote:

    I admire Simon for having the gulls to come speak with us. The problem is with our own greed. Nobody can beat the stocks. We tried to ride the wave once it was a tsunami. Shame on me for giving in to greed. Shame on TMF for trying to retract. Let us all move on, close out and be on our merry way.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 12:30 AM, jra3h9 wrote:

    Simon, why was CalAmp touted as THE STOCK OF THE YEAR if it was not qualified for an "official recommendation". That is the question.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 12:33 AM, jra3h9 wrote:

    It seems STOCK OF THE YEAR and "official recommendation" should be mutually inclusive.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 2:01 AM, TMFSymington wrote:

    Hey folks, Steve here. Just glanced back to check my comments and...well...wow!

    Given the massive response, I'd like to add to Simon's thoughts to give you a better idea of what drives us at the Fool.

    First, please read our expanded definition of the word "Motley" here: http://wiki.fool.com/Motley

    Specifically this exerpt: "We glory in the practice of letting our writers and analysts put forth views that do not agree with the "official" recommendation position of our premium advisory services because that leads investors to consider multiple sides to the investing argument. And when they do that, they usually make better, more informed decisions."

    In short -- even if CalAmp was a RB rec -- the view I expressed above is my own, and doesn't change the original special report recommendation.

    HOWEVER, with this in mind, we also need to remember most everything we Fools do considers a 3- to 5-year time frame, so my personal preference to "let the dust settle" and simply "keep tabs [on CalAmp] over the next few quarters" is NOT mutually exclusive from our "Top Stock for 2014" rec.

    In fact, by waiting, I'll readily admit I could be giving up some gains over the short-term as I choose to gather more information before making a long-term investing decision with my own money.

    At the same time, that's the beauty of long-term investing; you don't have to swing at every pitch. CalAmp is a small-cap stock prone to this kind of short-term volatility -- something I know all too well, by the way, from investing in other volatile companies like MAKO and OLED -- so I still think there will be plenty of time for patient investors to build positions and partake in the lion's share of gains over the next few years.

    I hope this helps, but if you still have questions feel free to email me at ssymington@fool.com . I'll be happy to engage further.

    Thanks for reading and commenting, everyone, and Fool on!

    Steve (TMFSymington)

    ssymington@fool.com

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 2:11 AM, Lz wrote:

    What he is saying is that motley fool has several subdivisions and gobs of analysts - we are commenting on the rule breakers side, since a rule breaker analyst was the only one to cover it. Rule breakers subdivision didn't recommend it. Collective research from various motley fool analysts recommended it. He's commenting as a rule breaker analyst rather than as the collective motley fool team. Perhaps the CEO needs to improve communication between his analysts to prevent miscommunication to his customers, motley fool did recommend camp as the stock of the year and since fundamentals haven't changed then the motley fool group that recommended it should still be recommending it. And just because the rule breaker analyst is planning on waiting to buy he stock doesn't mean that other motley fool analysts haven't bought the stock.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 2:46 AM, cnidog wrote:

    to Lz

    Now I am confused. I can usually break thingd down into easy to grasp pieces. Not this time. You are saying, if (and that is a big if) I understand it correctly that meansTMF is a conglomerate of subdivisions which actually compete with each other, perhaps to the detriment of their customers. I am not paying for the best advise available, I am financing somebody to stroke their ego? That does make a lot of things fall into place. The first thing that comes to mind is that TMF really doesn't sell information, it sells subscriptions.

    Reminds me of the Watergate days with Nixon. Congress asked "What did the President know and when did he stop knowing it?" Same with Reagan/Contra scandal, same with Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama. Same 'ol same 'ol.

    My point is don't panic, but at the same time one has to admit the fact a MF advisor says he will not buy, while on the same page there is an ad touting CAMP as the SOTY makes one say "Huh?"

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 4:28 AM, Fatkiat wrote:

    Dear Fellow Fools,

    My first post ever on TMF - feel an urge to share my 2cents hence, me voilà:

    Most fools who commented here are Disgusted, Disappointed and felt Deceived (yes, DDD) by TMF for its recommendation (which it didn't OFFICIALLY make) on CalAmp (CAMP). Reason cited is that if CAMP was recommended by TMF or one (or many) of its analysts, whey didn't it (or he/she/they) buy the stock. The (less important) counter-argument given by Steve (TMFSymington) and Simon (TMFTheInnovator) was that the recommendation didn't originate from the RB service (not even anyone of the TMF premium services) and the recommendation (cites as the best STOCK of 2014) was made by an analyst, seeming in his personal capacity. From what I last checked, CAMP was recommended by an analyst (not just any analyst but one whom I respect and follow with keen interest, always likes his take on investing and upcoming technology trends) - David Meier (TMFHumbleServant). The anger here would have been appeased if David replied to the comments in the capacity of the analyst who recommended the stock (not just the business - because it was the best stock of 2014 to him) AND also as a CAMP share-holder. Alas, the last I checked, he doesn't owe CAMP. It leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouth. What's more interesting is that Simon has $25 June put options on CAMP (hmmm.. Not sure if I am reading the disclosures right. If yes, that's really a powerful message - we bought stuff from a salesman who didn't believe in the product and when we brought it back, someone who doesn't think well of the product defended its quality. Hmm...).

    That said, I do agree with Simon's other point (so much so that I felt that the first clarification point was an irrelevant excuse which had most up in arms and worsen the criticisms) - that if we are convinced of the business' future (and hence its performs on over the long term), we should rejoice over this irrational price drop (which I feel is the case - after it missed analysts' (and not it's own) estimates) and make the best of this buying opportunity.

    To also be fair to TMF, among its losers (I own some DDD and CAMP) there are winners too (some AAPL and NOV). True that it has a good patch because a seizable portion of its recommendations are momo stocks which had good runs but tanked recently. I think there's too much short-term reasons to give TMF thumbs-down.

    Hence, fundamentally, if the reason why you bought the stock ( for its business) didn't change, the price plunge should bring you either joy (cos you can buy at 3/4 of the original price) or frustration but not panic exit (unless you needed the funds). Last but not least, it's your own money you are investing - TMF is a newsletter not a mutual fund. So let's not be like those short-sighted feudal kings of the past who execute their jesters when things aren't going so well.

    Again my 2 (very long-winded) cents. Thanks for letting me have your eye time.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 6:05 AM, cnidog wrote:

    Fatkiat

    thank you for your post. I just want to know, when you put your 2 cents in, who get's them? Just kidding. thx for sharing your thoughts. Gives one some mental food to chew on before making any rash decisions.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Lz wrote:

    Bottom line is that this stock is under $19 per share with an estimated earnings per share this year of a $1 and is estimated at 25-30% or more earnings increase. That's a pe of about 19 at the current price at the end of the year. My opinion is that the pe is low to average for the kind of growth we are talking about and I can see a pe of 25-35 for this growth. Averaging that out to a 30 pe puts this at 30 per share at some point within the year which is the current target on yahoo. Buy now and you most likely will see a nice set of change or do nothing and sell when it hits 30 and break even or hold over 5 or more years and as long as management stays on their goal, as they did in the previous 5 years we should all see a very nice profit.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 11:34 AM, giovannimechi wrote:

    this stock will recover nicely, buy this dip and keep a time horizon of 5+ years. I opened a new position yesterday (150 shares)

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Marxbro2 wrote:

    My problem with what occurred with this is not whether the stock tanked on one particular day, but about how The Motley Fool has seemed to respond. As pointed out in other places, getting any information about CAMP or analysis regarding the company report on or from MF since yesterday has been virtually impossible. All the links were suddenly inoperable, though not those for any other stocks for which I am aware. And the suggestion that CAMP is neither owned nor recommended by MF is just plain dishonest, and is a change in what has been stated on their site in their articles within the past week to 10 days.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 12:58 PM, corbanmugz wrote:

    TO TMFSymington:

    Can you please tell me if SWIR, INVN, and OLED are also stocks NOT recommended by motley fool or are they??? Cause seriously after today I don't know anymore

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 1:06 PM, TMFSymington wrote:

    @Marxbro2, Not sure which links you're trying, but checked one of my articles from January which included the report and nothing has changed. Feel free to send me a note if you'd like the link.

    Also, the disclaimer above is accurate in that neither I nor The Motley Fool owns shares of CAMP. Other writers who've covered CAMP over the past few weeks (most recent article was March 26) DO own shares in their personal portfolios. Look back through those articles, and you'll see those positions -- which are distinct from the stocks owned through TMF's premium real money portfolios -- were disclosed in their respective articles. Again, nothing has changed with regard to our special report Rec, individual disclosures, premium services, and positions (not) owned by TMF.

    Cheers,

    Steve (@TMFSymington)

    ssymington@fool.com

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Marxbro2 wrote:

    Steve,

    Before getting back on here and seeing your reply (sincerely: thank you for responding), I did go through all the articles again to check where I had seen a recommendation and statement of ownership by The Motley Fool, and you're correct, I could not find it again (in the section following articles that says, "so and so owns this; The Motley Fool owns that; The Motley Fool recommends this" where I look always for disclosures). That said, I'm not the only one who has posted having had the same experience, and, honestly, I don't recall having previously bought a stock on the basis of a Motley Fool site/letter/paper recommendation that I didn't previously look for and see that The Motley Fool also recommended and owned it. On the other hand, not finding it now I will accept that my experience was my mistake, and for that I apologize.

    The biggest frustration I felt (and heard/read from others) is two-fold: (1) what is and isn't really being recommended by The Motley Fool?; and, (2) more particularly, this: when the stock went down 7-8% after hours and at the beginning of trading, I understood and accept this can be and often is a not-infrequent part of the process. When it went down 10%, 12%, 15%, 20%, and then 25%, where was TMF, one of the primary information bases for stock information in which I have placed my trust? Unreachable for information on that stock. For a long period. Again, this was an experience that was shared by several others.

    I came to The Motley Fool many years ago when I first bought Tom's and Dave's book, "The Motley Fool Investment Guide". I don't remember if their motto then was "to educate, amuse, and enrich", but I do recall the primary flavor of what I got from them then was the first two: educate and amuse. I got that aplenty, and must be forever grateful. I have learned much about the market; the error of leaving my financial well-being to the "doctors, lawyers, and priests" of that system; and my responsibility – and ability – to take control of that for myself.

    If I have more recently felt frustration from a sense that I am repeatedly trying to be "sold" something by TMF, I must also admit that from this latest experience I have again been further enriched. I have been reminded that it is TMF's goal to "enrich" me, not TMF's responsibility to make me rich. That is mine to attempt. If I do not ever again take TMF's advice on a particular stock, TMF remains a wealth of other information with which I can further educate and amuse myself. For now, that is an extremely valuable lesson and it is enough.

    Thanks for putting up with my "rant" back.

    Mark (marxbro2)

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 3:51 PM, amh7209 wrote:

    I am also disappointed. It seems we have been whipsawed in a rotation from tech to other market sectors. A weakness of MF is not advising on entry points. The buy and hold thing says that entry points don't matter in the long term but with these high beta fliers, when the market turns you can really get burned. So I would ask that they do a little better job on advising when to buy. Also, CAMP was billed as a player in the "Internet of Everything". then I hear an interview with their CEO and HE ADMITS they are not a company that has anything to do with EVERYTHING, just one vertically integrated market sector of EVERYTHING which concentrates on auto fleet management and the like. I thing MF failed to understand what they were recommending. In my field this is called malpractice.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 4:34 PM, BlackhawkBob wrote:

    Thanks to the MF staff who had the guts to enter this discussion. However, there is no real substance to their comments, just lame excuses. And, if I pay for their premium service, I will get their real recommendations!!! Face it, this is just a marketing organization that has little talent when it comes to selecting stocks. I'm gone and will never recommend their service.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Fredcat1 wrote:

    I too was mystified when I heard Motley Fool has no position in CAMP. Why state its the best stock to own in 2014 and not own it? What is the motivation to make that statement and not own it??? I also find it interesting that on 4/2 in Rule Breakers Simon Erickson interviews the CEO of CAMP-and at the end of the transcript it states that Simon is short June 2014 $25.00 puts on CAMP. Nice job Simon!

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 8:36 PM, Prospero13 wrote:

    I sympathize with those who bought CAMP prior to yesterday's drop, but I was more than happy to take advantage of it and initiate a position. It's a small cap with a market cap of $662 million as of yesterday's close, so it wouldn't surprise me if one or two institutions just dumped it, which alone could have accounted for the 25% decline. You need to expect more volatility with small caps since it's easier for the large institutions to buy or sell a large percentage of shares and really impact the price.

    That being said, I've been a member of the Fool community since 2008 and a subscriber to a number of their services since 2010, and overall have been quite satisfied. It's easy to flip out when one of your holdings takes a nosedive in a day, especially if it takes up a large part of your portfolio. That's why you should diversify and hold for the long term if not add to your holdings when they take a hit like CAMP did yesterday.

  • Report this Comment On April 26, 2014, at 9:31 PM, tidaltom wrote:

    Interesting fact: My wife is watching a Netflix movie in the living room while I'm reading these posts regarding CAMP....and guess what movie she's watching " The Wolf of Wall Street" no wonder that a report came out last week that 73 percent of us don't have confidence in our Stock market. I also bought the stock on the basis of the MF report.

    Maybe I'm just a sore looser, but I think I'm aware of it when I've just been screwed!

    I'm Just Saying!

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 3:11 AM, UncleDoug101 wrote:

    I am buying an emerging industry as much as I am a stock. This is not a bad stock. It's a decent piece of the early stages of The Internet of Things. Like many of you, I've suffered much worse -- the Starbuck's drop from 40 to 8. Now at 70. I held on to my worthiness back then, buying at 30, 20, and 10. I can handle this. I'm going to make good money on this volatility. I'll buy again next week. You folks, why don't you have a mocha on me.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Gordo wrote:

    I believe we are dealing with a few distinct issues here:

    Should you do your research vs blindly following TMF recon...yes

    Should you panic when a fundamentally good stock drops on a small earnings miss...no

    Separate from all of these investing issues is one of TMF as a credible service. Let's focus on that one. Here is my summary:

    Am very confused by official vs unofficial recos.

    Baffled by them owning some of their recos but not their Stock of the Year

    Exhausted by having to watch 40 minute videos just to learn some simple points about an opportunity that could have been explained in a couple of paragraphs

    Lost by the often wandering rating on stocks that seem to go up and down and in or out depending on time and which TMF analyst is commenting

    Tired of the endless promoting of the next greatest thing, offering or stock, in an ever more sensationalist manner.

    The original TMF book was good and I am aligned with their investing principles, but have had it with the organization. It has gone from a credible investing source to a cheap marketing machine.

    I am done with TMF.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Got2BMe wrote:

    I would very much appreciate it if MF would explicitly explain why they would so highly tout camp but not own it.

    What criteria are used to recommend a stock so highly that screen out for MF purchasers?

    If I am to continue to belong to MF I need to know this going to be able to evaluate information and recommendations provided by MF in context.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 10:06 AM, doublee101 wrote:

    Well said Gordo.......

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 10:19 AM, flogtucker wrote:

    I would like to know the reasons TMF does not own CAMP; the stock they described as THE STOCK 0F 2014. Just the reasons please.

    Thanks,

    FlogTucker

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 10:49 AM, sparbok67 wrote:

    I guess im "lucky" ,I bought at 25.74. Ive only been a MF member for a couple of months but I am down on there reccommendatios and so far not impressed. I wonder how long those big percentage gains are going to last on the stock advisor. I can only think of the old saying figures dont lie but liars can figure, or something like that.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 11:43 AM, floridaboyxxxxx wrote:

    Was this the stock that David Gardner said was supposed to soar higher than Twitter...I've been trying to figure it out...I had thought it was, because it was stock of the year...Sometimes you have to wait for a bottom also.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 11:59 AM, floridaboyxxxxx wrote:

    Was this the stock that David Gardner said would soar higher than Twitter...I thought it may have been, because of it being stock of the year.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 1:19 PM, jra3h9 wrote:

    Going forward, please do not recommend a trade to me that is not an "official recommendation" or owned by TMF.

    That information should have been disclosed on the report.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 7:38 PM, Lz wrote:

    If you go to premium advice you will see there are different subscriptions you can buy. I have a membership in stock advisor and this one rule breakers and a subscription to better investing national association of investment clubs. Every month each of these subscriptions send out two recommendations for stocks to study as investment ideas, with motley it looks like they have a collection of their analysts opinions of their top pick for the year. Depending on the motley fool manager the stocks picked this year may end up in the fund sometime next year. I think the analyst who recommended this one was from the millionaire group or something like that. I wonder if it was on the recommend for one of the monthly newsletters for that subgroup? I'm not 100% sure on this but it what I'm gleaning. In addition, there is an article motley posted on the internet of everything and both this stock and sierra wireless we're mentioned as front runners. I know one of my subscriptions had a sierra wireless recommendation so I'm guessing that calamp was a recommendation by another premium service. So far I have felt most comfortable short term at least with better investing advice as they recommend stock guidance levels using past and future High/low PE ratios as a guide for what range to buy at over a five year period, but motley fools advice appears to have some picks that have potential greater growth at greater volatility.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 8:06 PM, ajarcen wrote:

    Has anyone seen the latest article TMF posted on CalAmp?

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 8:19 PM, Lz wrote:

    No - what's the link?

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 8:46 PM, brandonchen wrote:

    @TMFSymington

    "In fact, by waiting, I'll readily admit I could be giving up some gains over the short-term as I choose to gather more information before making a long-term investing decision with my own money."

    Did TMF forget to put the above disclaimer on CAMP when it was pitched in the "top pick in 2014" report?

    Maybe that is what TMF means with all the recommendations they published..

    Summarizing all the comments above, we can see how irresponsible TMF can be!

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 11:04 PM, ajarcen wrote:

    Here's the link to the article that a MF analyst wrote on loser stocks, which included CalAmp (CAMP).

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/27/5-of-last-w...

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2014, at 11:13 PM, Reepycheep wrote:

    I bought CalAmp, LinkedIn, The Container Store and 3D Systems all because of MF and now I'm absolutely sick that I did.

    I am so sorry I ever subscribed.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 1:03 AM, realfood wrote:

    Thanks for the link ajarcen, TMF doesn't own Yandex either ! what's going on here? bought it and camp on there recomendations

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 2:02 AM, TMFSymington wrote:

    First, @ajarcen and realfood: Remember, not all of our premium services are real-money portfolios. In fact, Yandex was recently added to one of our real-money portfolio watch lists and remains an open "outperform" call in at least one of our other premium newsletters. Also, ajarcen, be careful not to take Rick M's comments out of context in today's article, which was meant as a quick recap for five of the stocks which fell the hardest last week.

    Second, keep in mind several of our premium services analysts do already own shares of CAMP in their personal portfolios.

    Finally, thank you if you've sent an email asking additional questions/clarifications my way. Keep 'em coming if you feel so inclined and I'll be happy to respond.

    Cheers,

    Steve (@TMFSymington)

    ssymington@fool.com

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 4:37 AM, BigCop wrote:

    I think we are all forgetting one important thing here. CAMP is not a broken company only a broken stock. Broken stocks come back when they are in favor and broken companies keep falling. We all liked this company for its FUTURE potential. The internet of things or internet of everything is a 5-10 year story not a 5 month story. This one will take awhile and when it takes a dip like it did the other day that can only mean one thing...BUY! Unless the fundamentals change this is a buy on any decent dip. This market is Bi-Polar these days and can rally or crash on any news or no news at all. The company could have a great quarter and the stock tanks...huh weird I know. The simple fact is I am a subscriber to MF RB because they have some very good articles about companies that I am interested in. Do I buy every single stock that they mention or recomend? NO I'm not that rich but also that would be stupid. Do your due dilligence on each stock YOU buy based on your own research and not a recomendation.

    Hey I have some great land in Florida for sale that will be worth a small fortune in the next year after developers build next to it if anyone is interested.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 9:39 AM, foozman wrote:

    This doesn't bother me so much. 25% fluctuation is not unreasonable for a growth stock, since earnings are used to estimate growth rates that impact price exponentially. The only reason to buy is if you think future earnings will justify a higher price in the future. If you believe that true value is given by the market, then don't buy individual stocks. Buy index funds. The fact that you are considering buying an individual stock means that the market makes mistakes, sometime high, sometime low. How the heck is someone supposed to predict someone else's mistakes? MF does not advise based on momentum. At least I don't think it does.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 9:47 AM, famousstocks wrote:

    DDD and CAMP, the big recommendations here.

    I'm happy i didn't follow these and made my homework.

    Groupe Gorge ist better than DDD

    Freescale is better than CAMP

    This is not a buy recomendation.

    have fun.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 10:17 AM, GSH53 wrote:

    I too bought CAMP on stock of the year touting, which now appears to have been nothing but marketing hype by TMF. This organization has DESTROYED their credibility and their reputation by claiming they now don't own it and never admitting it was a SELL. How could anyone be stupid enough to continue taking advice from TMF group.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Schefe wrote:

    Bottom line is its not about all of us owning the 2014 stock of the year as stated if only one stock to buy in 2014 CAMP is it...wild rides sometime happen, I look to TMF for their 10% promise! not an update email that touts it as a "watch"...all we really are interested in is your take on everything, future position and profits and why it's happening. That's what we pay a subscription for... So what's the deal here were we all not in the loop when you decided to watch instead of own?

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 11:41 AM, TMFOpie wrote:

    Dear Fools,

    An incredible conversation here about CalAmp after it reported what I thought was a pretty good quarter. A few analysts, including Simon, and I discussed this as the most prolific response we've seen to a 10% promise article. I can see why given how we have talked about CAMP in our Stocks 2014 report. This is TMF at its best --- open and transparent conversation about investing.

    First let me say that I always hate to see any stock we discuss/recommend drop 20% in a given day. That's a significant drop and a pain point for any investor holding the shares. I don't take that lightly and didn't sleep too well knowing. Studies show that we feel these losses (even paper, like on Friday) 2x as much as an equal gain. That's human nature. CalAmp had been performing well for us since we featured in last autumn in our annual report, Stocks 2014: 12 Stocks to Outsmart the Market Today. And it had a great run in 2013 and our outlook for the next several years is that CalAmp, the company, and CAMP, the stock, will outperform. We’ve hit a bump in the latter but I don’t think the former for the long-term investor. But I do understand the drop is tough to see and experience.

    Second, regarding the annual report, we choose 12 proven analysts to research/vet/pick/write-up their favorite stock. We encourage these companies to not be part of our premium services because we like to give fresh thinking to our readers/members, rather than just re-write-ups of stocks in our newsletters. We feel that is a better experience and there are lots of great companies/stocks to choose from. That said, we believe that these are some of this team’s best new ideas and we believe in them…over the next several years.

    Which gets me to the timeline of our stocks. While I always aim to pick stocks that make us money and I aim to be right on all our stock timing, I also know that over the course of months and even within a year I won’t always get it right. And with our Stocks 2014 (whether top stock or any of the 12) we’re never recommending 1 year performance. We’re always looking out years and thinking about where the business will be then, not where the stock will be next quarter. And that’s certainly true with a company like CalAmp that is playing in a dynamic growth spot and as a small-cap stock can show volatility. So as an investor (a true investor investing capital to growing businesses) it is critical that you keep that timeline in mind.

    As for CalAmp itself, I went through the earrings report and the conference call. And outside of some lumpiness in the earnings and the slightly lower guidance for the coming quarter, I found a lot to like about where the company is -- international expansion, merger integration, gross margins, etc.. It seems to me that a lot of momentum investors likely jumped scared out of the stock as they saw it trending down. For the year the stock has been under pressure, like many other growth type stocks like LNKD, NFLX, CMG, DDD, AMZN, ISRG, etc. And the Friday numbers didn’t help. But again, we have to look at this $800 million business over the next several years. And looking at our Stocks 2014 report (again, from just six months ago) and the business today, not much has changed. In fact, the company is making more and more progress on acquisition integration and continuing the move away from satellite.

    So I can understand the frustration at seeing CAMP drop significantly on Friday and YTD after a very healthy 2013. But this story is far from over. I hope the stock rebounds to beat the market in 2014, but as I always have been, I’m more bullish on the prospects come 2017 and beyond. I wouldn't want you to judge us on just this one stock performance (it's only been a few months into a few years of our outlook). That would be like evaluating an MLB team after watching them for the first few games of a season. It's a long season. Just as investing is a long-term game (at least for us).

    And finally, just one word on diversification. And this is not a cop out but just reality about investing in dynamic growth companies. You want to always carry in your portfolio a healthy balance of equities. David Gardner likens your portfolio to a football team, with your steady, lineman; star quarterback; fleet of foot wide receiver growth companies. A team with all WRs will get stopped in the NFL. Just as one of all lineman would too. CAMP is a WR and it’s pulled a hamstring. So having some of others to help out and linemen to carry the load is a good thing. That’s how I’m building my own portfolio and my daughter’s portfolio as well, even though I follow small-cap stocks as an Advisor on Hidden Gems. Whether your portfolio is $1 million, $100,000 or $10,000. You'll want to be invested in dozens of stocks.

    I hope this helps explain a little of where I’m at with CalAmp’s performance, Fools. I do hope to see the stock return to its out-performing ways as we look down the road over the next couple of years. And yes, I really do believe that is the time horizon you’ll need to have but should be rewarded.

    Fool on,

    Andy

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 12:14 PM, doublee101 wrote:

    Andy, but you are still not buying CAMP on the dip?

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Gordo wrote:

    Thanks Andy for responding.

    Respectfully, I believe that the commentary is less about CAMP and more about what TMF has evolved to. I agree with all of Andy's comments on CAMP the stock...but let's set aside CAMP the stock and how it will do going forward.

    Lets get back to the real issue that has driven all of these comments and that is about TMF credibility. I would like a simple True or False from Tom and or David to these questions:

    1.Was CAMP touted by a TMF writer as Stock of the Year?

    2.Is this Stock of the Year not actually held by the Motley Fool?

    3.Was this same Stock of the Year (CAMP) touted as a "loser" stock by a TMF writer in an article that explained why the reader needs to subscribe to a TMF service to get at the REAL stocks?

    Was one of your writers writing puts on a stock that TMF called the Stock of the Year?

    Have we then had TMF comments about how, yes, it was Stock of the Year, but not actually recommended in a paid service of the TMF, so actually it doesn't count?

    Are the stocks recommended in these "separate" reports excluded in calculating the tremendous TMF market gains?

    I believe that the answer to all of the above is TRUE and I fail to understand how TMF has any credibility left after this situation. Please don't reply with a song and dance about a rich tapestry of dissenting opinions and the need of reader to do his own analysis. I also don't need a lecture about buying and holding for the long term. Again separate issues. An investing firm should have an opinion, a methodology and a value proposition, all anchored in a framework of openness, credibility and integrity. Like TMF used to before the marketers took over. I would have the same opinion of these issues whether CAMP went up or down.

    As a minimum, there should be a way of opting out of the "unofficial" reports where TMF has no holdings that TMF will later be calling loser stocks. I certainly don't want to sit through the agonizingly slow videos to learn about these stocks. If I elect to continue with TMF (highly unlikely) can I at least unsubscribe to these reports, or maybe flag them more clearly.

    Many thanks.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 12:57 PM, canucknobuck wrote:

    Interesting discussion between the fools and the Fools.

    Anyone that would buy a company like CAMP based on a December/January recommendation and be complaining after FOUR months that the price has declined (not the value btw) is a fool. Especially if you put too many eggs in that basket.

    I've been watching CAMP since December. I didn't pull the trigger but now I see it as being 'on sale' and I'm gonna take a nibble. My time horizon also is more like four years rather than four months.

    I bought Zillow a while back at 34 bucks a share then watched it drop 40%. I was not happy but also not concerned - if you can't handle the volatility of some of these types of companies stick to mutual funds. But I hung on and recouped my paper 'loss' and then went on to more than a double at which I sold half. If you understood CAMP well enough and you accept and believe the investment thesis then you should see this as a buying opportunity. Still, not every company is going to perform. If sixty percent of your holdings are profitable that will make up for the percentage that are not.

    Dave Meier is the analyst who suggested CalAmp in the Stocks for 2014 publication. He's a very solid guy who does his homework. I've followed him for years on MDP. I respect his analysis and I think that this will be a good investment.

    MF is a very effective marketing organization and their free information is a lead in to their paid subscriptions. You got the CalAmp recommendation for free. Get over it. I've been a paying subscriber since 2007 and my results have more than paid for any subscription costs. But I'm not expecting that everything I invest I will be profitable in four months.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 2:02 PM, whafa wrote:

    Index investing, guys. Follow TMF's original advice, from before they became market shills, and invest passively in a low-overhead index fund. Stop paying TMF for the same premium services they once decried. You'll sleep better at night and you'll save a boatload on newsletter subscriptions. You can thank me later.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 2:03 PM, doublee101 wrote:

    Who said they got it for free? I didnt.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 3:08 PM, DJK564 wrote:

    Have never posted

    MF has extraordinary talent and resources.... People who are a lot smarter than me about stocks, financials, etc.... Have time that I do not have, to research in great depth and detail.... That is why I subscribe.

    They are not always right....

    Swinging for the fences is higher risk...

    I was down over 40% CAMP on a large position.. And am still buying

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 6:39 PM, dorothy2929 wrote:

    Entertaining and insightful at the very lest. I would like to suggest that the Motley Fool make a greater effort to differentiate its paid stock recommendation from the foolish ramblings of "others". Any reasonable person would of assumed the Fools own it #1 stock recommendation of 2014.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2014, at 6:43 PM, foolishmoney wrote:

    A Stock of the Year pic with TMF no ownership just makes no sense, no matter the explanation. It is misleading, period. I certainly don't know the inside situation at TMF, other that what we can read here. But if the organization is segmented for different tasks, it appears that "the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing", or some variation such as "left doesn't agree with what the right is doing". I suppose TMF is having meetings behind the scenes to straighten this out. How this is handled will determine how members view TMF going forward.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Lz wrote:

    Just reviewing everything I missed. I really respect what Andy had to say and it clarified some missing pieces for me ... "Second, regarding the annual report, we choose 12 proven analysts to research/vet/pick/write-up their favorite stock. We encourage these companies to not be part of our premium services because we like to give fresh thinking to our readers/members, rather than just re-write-ups of stocks in our newsletters. We feel that is a better experience and there are lots of great companies/stocks to choose from. That said, we believe that these are some of this team’s best new ideas and we believe in them…over the next several years."

    I have been looking at this company quite a bit from two perspectives - numbers and product - I can see why this made their top 2014 list and looks like a good buying opportunity. The fools are fools if they don't add it to one of their premium services at this price to keep on one of their score cards - just my opinion.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2014, at 5:03 PM, marginjim wrote:

    Words. Words. Words. Most times they do us well; but sometimes they turn around and bite us. And it often happens when the speaker means one thing and the listeners hear something else.

    I think that's what happened with "Stock of the Year." Within the employed and managing members of the MF universe I think it went like this: The Stock Advisor list of 2014 stocks had, as it does every year, 12 stocks, each recommended by a different analyst. Of those 12, one was judged (by someone) to be the best of all - not all stocks, just all of the 12 recommended ones. So it got called "The stock of the year."

    But I and a lot of others didn't read it like that. And we had a right to our misinterpretation. It was truly over the top with nothing in the context to moderate the hype.

    And, while I don't think there was any attempt to deceive, I think TMF, as an organization, did make a serious communications error. Moreover, it might be that this mix up was a natural result of a marketing effort that is starting to look too much like all those others that try to rope in paying customers with extravagant promises.

    You might want to take this as a wake up call that summons you to take a look at yourself and make sure that you never trade in those things that have made you great: integrity, straight talk, a balanced long term outlook on the stock market and respect for the maturity of those who have come to depend on you.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Warpig63 wrote:

    MF has made a fool out of me on CAMP as of now. Every buy can have a different story as time moves along. Hope to feel cool rather than fool as i will be holding from my early March buy. I agree with LZ above.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Fredcat1 wrote:

    It's simple. MF Choose to publish the Top stock of 2014 under their Brand. It was very surprising to me that they did not own. It was very surprising to me that the writer interviewing the CEO of CAMP was also shorting the stock. MF you should not be surprised about about the confusion expressed here.

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2014, at 10:02 PM, DANP72 wrote:

    If you call it "Stock of the Year" by all means its THE stock of the year. If MF chief editors dont back up a stock dont publish it. Was a member since 08 then left for past 2 years. Just came back and got NAILED by CAMP. Bought at $32 Find it confussing that every month they keep adding a DIFFERENT stock. Im a SA and RB suscriber and they claim to worship Buffett. He doesnt own 200 stocks. MF simplify get all of your people together and choose only 5 good stocks per sector and let us decide. Really dissapointed

  • Report this Comment On April 29, 2014, at 11:40 PM, TMFSymington wrote:

    @Fredcat1, Check out Simon's profile again and you'll see he's "Short Jun 2014 $25 Puts on CAMP".

    It's a bullish options bet, not the same as being short CAMP stock.

    -

    Steve

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2014, at 3:18 AM, jazz47 wrote:

    Not my intent to rub salt in the wound but RB and SA services are generally pretty clear about reviewing stocks for investing not trading. Let's not pretend we don't know the difference here.

    If you came here to buy a stock you can flip in a month or two then you are tricking yourself into being a fool with a small "f". That's not what MF is about.

    A significant number of the stocks here are smaller companies like CAMP, thus highly volatile. If you want to participate in the very early life of a growth stock you have to have the stomach for it. And this volatility has nothing to do with long term value of the company and by extension where it will be trading in 3-5 years.

    That said I must add that I sympathize with some of the ire at TMF marketing practices. At a certain point you start to become alienated, especially by those god-awful 20 minute infomercials that flood your inbox.

    I've only subscribed for a few months I'm already gritting my teeth when I open an email. No matter how much of your money MF is getting it doesn't ever seem to be enough. The hyperbole gets more extravagant with each shameless pitch.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2014, at 12:36 PM, yogaman wrote:

    I too have lost on several MF recommendations including CAMP, INVN, CELG, GILD. I have done better sniffing out opportunities by reading stories and links to other stories; e.g., TRN, SSL, MHTX, GLW, F.

    I reckon I will hang onto CAMP; maybe it will rebound a year from now. No sense taking the loss unless I figure I can put the remaining funds to better work somewhere else.

    Good luck to all!

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Wonderland35 wrote:

    I think it would be a good move if MF SA and RB buy lots of CAMP and push the value up. That would be fair compensation for all of us that at present are losing a lot of money (on paper anyway). I haven't sold yet.

    Patricia

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2014, at 3:43 PM, marysc wrote:

    Surely you guys don't think TMF is going to be 100% accurate on all its recommendations, especially on tech stocks designed for the future. My CAMP stock has gone down too, but I only bought it in December and planned to hold it a year minimum. Even if it tanks, I have to balance it against the DDD stock I bought for $40k on their recommendation in 2012 and sold in February 2014 for $160k. Heck, I don't expect to do that well on every iffy stock. But how would I even have known about DDD if it wasn't for the Fools?

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Dtrower1 wrote:

    I have been a long time subscriber & have many more successes than failures!' However between "DDD" & "CAMP" I'm somewhat surprised on the lack of guidance on both,although somewhat more info. on "DDD" than "CAMP"

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Danimal2gi wrote:

    I have the same questions as Gordo. I don't think the problem is the stock itself and it's recent price drop, I expect my growth stocks to be volatile in the short term and am considering buying more CAMP now.

    The issue is credibility, transparency, and marketing tactics at TMF.

    I too would like an answer to the questions posed by Gordo below:

    Thanks Andy for responding.

    Respectfully, I believe that the commentary is less about CAMP and more about what TMF has evolved to. I agree with all of Andy's comments on CAMP the stock...but let's set aside CAMP the stock and how it will do going forward.

    Lets get back to the real issue that has driven all of these comments and that is about TMF credibility. I would like a simple True or False from Tom and or David to these questions:

    1.Was CAMP touted by a TMF writer as Stock of the Year?

    2.Is this Stock of the Year not actually held by the Motley Fool?

    3.Was this same Stock of the Year (CAMP) touted as a "loser" stock by a TMF writer in an article that explained why the reader needs to subscribe to a TMF service to get at the REAL stocks?

    Was one of your writers writing puts on a stock that TMF called the Stock of the Year?

    Have we then had TMF comments about how, yes, it was Stock of the Year, but not actually recommended in a paid service of the TMF, so actually it doesn't count?

    Are the stocks recommended in these "separate" reports excluded in calculating the tremendous TMF market gains?

    I believe that the answer to all of the above is TRUE and I fail to understand how TMF has any credibility left after this situation. Please don't reply with a song and dance about a rich tapestry of dissenting opinions and the need of reader to do his own analysis. I also don't need a lecture about buying and holding for the long term. Again separate issues. An investing firm should have an opinion, a methodology and a value proposition, all anchored in a framework of openness, credibility and integrity. Like TMF used to before the marketers took over. I would have the same opinion of these issues whether CAMP went up or down.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Fredcat1 wrote:

    Steve TMFSymington-You are correct. The writer was bullish on Camp. I apologize for rushing to conclusion.

  • Report this Comment On May 01, 2014, at 11:41 AM, TMFSymington wrote:

    @Fredcat1, No worries, I see how that could be confusing.

    @Danimal2gi, On questions 1 and 2, check out the explanatory comment left up above by Andy Cross (TMFOpie).

    On question 3 -- In short: No. That takes out of context the purpose of this article from Rick Munarriz: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/27/5-of-last-w... . Read it and you'll realize Rick wasn't calling CAMP a " 'loser' stock" as Gordo implied, but rather recapping the reasons five stocks fell hard in the previous week.

    Thanks again for reading and commenting, and Fool on!

    Steve (@TMFSymington)

  • Report this Comment On May 01, 2014, at 2:48 PM, Danimal2gi wrote:

    Respectfully, Steve,

    I think folks were turned off not by the article but the marketing at the bottom suggesting that if you owned one of the "losers" you need to subscribe to get the big winners. Some of us here are paying members who got the special report as part of our paid subscription; that's pretty insulting.

  • Report this Comment On May 01, 2014, at 7:35 PM, doublee101 wrote:

    Now INVN....I read that MF actually has a position, I DO hope thats accurate.....

  • Report this Comment On May 16, 2014, at 2:49 PM, FMel065 wrote:

    I saw a discussion on the TMF website a couple of weeks ago about how DDD isn't such a great buy after all. I wondered how they could be so bullish just a few months ago, and now be skeptical. As a matter of fact, I still see the advertisement for the report about DDD in some of the emails I receive. I don't understand why TMF would send out reports that tout DDD as a potentially revolutionary stock that "marks the end of the made in China era", and yet express skepticism about it on other discussions. Luckily, I bought at around $55 and sold at $77. I believe TMF has good recommendations, but don't like the fact that they try to play both sides. I think CAMP has a lot of upside. However, the overall state of the market must also be considered. The correction was bound to happen sooner or later. I also think that we should always have sell rules for any investment. I find it difficult to subscribe to TMF's buy and hold strategy, which is often built on pure speculation. Nonetheless, I view their articles and discussions as a great starting point for my own analysis.

  • Report this Comment On May 21, 2014, at 5:07 PM, RaptorD2 wrote:

    Observation: It is obvious that there are loads of newer investors here (Welcome!). Why obvious? More experienced investors would realize several things. Things like these:

    • When newsletters discuss stocks that are independent of the current recommendations, it is a bonus to readers, giving more information than bargained for. It is also obvious they are independent discussions if we actually *read* the letter instead of copying down the recommended tickers for our robot assistant to purchase ASAP.

    • Stock recommendations, no matter how strongly explained, no matter how confidently made, are opinions of the writer(s) ONLY. We still have to think for ourselves, and that is where the outsized profits will be born.

    • A stock that rises steadily over years without considerable price drops along the way, do not exist. If they did, few would ever buy except the original, early buyers because it would always appear to be over-priced. (See NFLX, AMZN, MSFT, BRK.A)

    • Many experienced investors would have missed out on the stock above, waiting for the market to mis-price the company.

    • Many experienced investors would only now become interested in buying the stock because it’s on sale.

    • Many experienced investors would add to their positions now if they already owned shares and still believed in the company’s earnings potential.

    • High-profit stocks are high-profit for a reason. Let’s learn more about risk vs. reward in the market. (Quiz: Can we have high profit without risk? If so, WHERE?)

    • In short, none of us were hurt by recent price changes in CAMP unless we need our capital right now (and in that case, we clearly know we should not have been investing in long-term investments with this money in the first place, right?)

    From the other side of the coin, I offer another perspective on CAMP's "demise.": Only now is the company interesting to me as a real-life potential investment. Now remember, this stock is the Dog of the Year, a shyster’s and a hypster’s dream stock to sell to the inexperienced, gullible and trusting. Remember it is still overpriced and as you all have said above, it will never go anywhere but down, down, down until there is no further to fall. I think it may well fall tomorrow and again next week. Yikes! But having been in your position before, I feel your pain and would like to take some of it away for you, because I’m a nice guy. No, really, I am. So I tell you what. Sell me your shares. So my fellow investors, how much do you want for your losing shares of this Super Dog? Whoa, whoa. Please make a line in single file, I’ll get to all of you as soon as possible.

    In the spirit of fully disclosure, I’m in. CAMP is moving from my watchlist to my owned list this week. And if it goes down another 20, 30 or 50%, I will make every attempt to keep my glee and delight to myself. I also promise not to whine if it falls again and again—not to you, certainly not to TMF (why the hell would I?) and probably won’t even complain to my dear spouse, who doesn’t like losses at all and is definitely much tougher than anyone here.*

    Dan

    * Big deal, Frankly, my gentle Golden Retriever is tougher than you guys and she NEVER complains. Then again, she’s not a risk taker. Nor is she Rule Breaker material. She likes guarantees so I have her in U.S. Treasuries currently paying almost zero dog treats but she’s okay with that because we give her some dog treats from our secret stockpile of stock profits. Hmm … Maybe many of us here are not really Rule Breaker material either. Food for thought? Anyway, I’m just sayin’ … One rule never fails: No risk of pain = no risk of gain. :)

  • Report this Comment On June 02, 2014, at 2:48 PM, mattlenco wrote:

    I bought this stock not reading a single paragraph of TMF. I was playing around with research filters on Fidelity. It is a solid company. Right now, I lost 47% of my total brokerage monies. At first I was nervous, slightly less now. There are no guarantees yet no reason to rush to a loss. The risk of speculation isn't forecastable unless it is insider trading and you can't insulate against that. I also bought 100k of SANW a seed stock with in CA and Australia to continue harvesting in reciprocating warm seasons, then the CA drought came. These are solid ideas exhibiting stressors that we don't want to delusion ourselves to believe. What are you going to do, dump it all into Mastercard?

  • Report this Comment On June 04, 2014, at 8:46 PM, TonyP4 wrote:

    From my book Investing Strategies: Profitable and Updated (amazon), I sold CAMP making 283% in just over a year. After the big plunge, I bought it again. Need market timing otherwise a fool and his money part soon.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2930859, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/19/2014 1:53:11 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...


Advertisement