5 of Last Week's Biggest Losers

There's never a shortage of stocks going the wrong way in any given chunk of time. No stock goes straight up, and sometimes fundamentals can get a bit wobbly. Let's take a closer look at five of this past week's biggest sinkers.

Company

May 23

Weekly Loss

Provectus Pharmaceuticals  (NYSEMKT: PVCT  )

$2.02

35%

Aeropostale  (NYSE: ARO  )

$3.41

23%

Dick's Sporting Goods  (NYSE: DKS  )
(NASDAQ: SPLS  )

$43.08

16%

LifeLock  (NYSE: LOCK  )

$11.34

13%

Walter Energy  (NYSE: WLT  )

$5.69

10%

Source: Barron's.

Let's start with Provectus Pharmaceuticals. The biotech specializing in treatments for oncologic and dermatologic conditions shed more than a third of its value after a report claimed that its flagship therapy was being denied Breakthrough Therapy Designation by the FDA. Provectus refuted the claims, but the stock was halted all day on Friday as regulators did in fact deny it the expedited designation.

PV-10 -- Provectus' investigational metastatic melanoma therapy -- seemed promising after encouraging phase 2 trials two years ago. It just doesn't help its credibility to deny something two days before it backfires, even if its points refuting patent expirations and associations with stock promoters hold up. 

Aeropostale ran into some turbulence after warning that its second-quarter loss would be larger than expected. The once trendy mall retailer has been struggling, posting six consecutive quarterly losses that will be going on seven soon. RBC Capital Markets downgraded the stock on the grim report.

Dick's Sporting Goods had a hard time attracting hunters so it became the prey. The sporting goods retailer took a hit after posting disappointing results. Weakness in golfing and hunting were to blame for Dick's hosing down of its full-year earnings and comps targets.

LifeLock slumped after pulling its mobile wallet app on security breach concerns. LifeLock had recently purchased the mobile app developer, and clearly your reputation as a protector of identity theft is going to take a hit if your app fails on that front. Goldman Sachs downgraded the stock on the news, while Sterne Agee and Pacific Crest lowered their price targets.  

Finally we have Walter Energy with a lump of coal in its stocking. Coal stocks got hammered after a Politico report claimed that the EPA was going to introduce anti-carbon regulations on June 2 that would require utilities to scale back on their coal consumption. Earlier this month, Stanford University turned heads by announcing that it will divest from coal companies.

Bounce back with three winners riding America's energy bonanza
Record oil and natural gas production is revolutionizing the United States' energy position. Finding the right plays while historic amounts of capital expenditures are flooding the industry will pad your investment nest egg. For this reason, The Motley Fool is offering a look at three energy companies using a small IRS "loophole" to help line investor pockets. Learn this strategy, and the energy companies taking advantage, in our special report "The IRS Is Daring You to Make This Energy Investment." Don't miss out on this timely opportunity; click here to access your report -- it's absolutely free. 


Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (0)

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 May 25, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Jkrywyn wrote:

    Actually, the pvct information is correct.

    The claim was that they had already received the decision and did not know what it was yet. They did NOT claim they had a positive decision.

    However, the article, with many false claims, claimed they had already gotten it and it was a no.

    Management had not yet gotten the decision yet, according to them. Despite it being postmarked they day they did not receive it until Friday. This article was out Wednesday.

    It may have been there was a leak (or the author of the story was taking a guess - as he said "I think" and "I believe a lot". But management was not aware of the ultimate "no" decision.

    The FDA wanted data on how the drug affected symptom control. They did not have enough as many of the melanoma patients did not necessarily have pain or bleeding on site.

    Management, in their conference call, thought shout tumor necrosis or ablation and death of the tumor (at a 64% complete response rate) was enough to show that the symptoms, logically, were improved.

    Sort of a bureaucratic problem, in my opinion. The FDA has their endpoints and exact specifications. Proving tumors safely die is not enough. Further studies to show symptom relief will be required.

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2971207, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 7/31/2014 10:23:50 PM

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