Connect with us


3 “Strong Buy” Penny Stocks That Could See Outsized Gains

3 “Strong Buy” Penny Stocks That Could See Outsized Gains



For investors willing to shoulder additional risk, these may be the best of times for buying stocks. Writing at Morgan Stanley, Michael Wilson, the firm’s head of US equity strategy, firmly believes that the signs are bullish, and that current conditions in the markets closely resemble those of March 2009. That was when market turned upwards after the 2008 financial crisis, beginning the longest bull run in history.

Wilson wrote, “A significant driver of our bullish call … was based on the equity-risk premium reaching the same levels observed in March 2009. If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the past 10 years, it’s that when risk premium appears you need to grab it before it disappears.”

Investors can maximize that premium by finding stocks with the lowest share price and the highest upside potential – in short, by buying into high-rated penny stocks. These equities, typically trading for under $5 per share, offer a minimal cost of entry – and can sometimes show triple digit upside potential.

We’ve used the TipRanks database to pull up the details on three such opportunities. All three have received enough support from Wall Street analysts to earn a “Strong Buy” consensus rating. Not to mention each boasts substantial upside potential of over 100%.

Organogenesis Holdings (ORGO)

Organogenesis’ subsidiaries operate in the world of medical tech, developing new technologies in two markets: wound care, and surgical and sports medicine.

Despite a sharp increase in earnings losses during the first quarter, Organogenesis had good news to report. Top-line revenue came in at $61.7 million, modestly beating the forecast but growing 8% year-over-year. Revenues grew substantially in both the wound care and surgical and sports medicine segments. The company finished the quarter with $46.9 million in cash on hand.

Organogenesis returned to public trading at the beginning of last year, after 16 years as a private company. Like many high-tech medical companies, it has not yet turned a profit – but it does have exciting prospects for successful products in potentially lucrative sales fields.

This potential lies behind 5-star analyst Richard Newitter’s comments. In his report for Leerink, Newitter writes, “As a relatively new public company, we believe ORGO has yet to be fully “discovered” by investors with a below-peer valuation that in our view is highly dislocated from the company’s longer-term sales growth prospects, healthy end-markets, and a scalable long term 70%+ GM business. Ultimately, as investors increasingly come to appreciate ORGO’s potential for sustainable DD top-line growth & increased profitability prospects into the out-years, we think the multiple will expand driving shares higher.”

In line with his upbeat outlook, Newitter rates ORGO shares a Buy, and his $7 price target implies a 112% upside potential. In short, the analyst believes that now is the time for investors to get in at the ground level. (To watch Newitter’s track record, click here)

All in all, Wall Street analysts are unanimous in their endorsement of the shares. Organogenesis stock has been endorsed with "buy" ratings by all four of the analysts who have voiced an opinion over the past year. Meanwhile, the consensus estimate of analysts is that ORGO, currently trading at $3.33, should rise over 120% to hit $7.50 within a year. (See Organogenesis stock analysis on TipRanks)

Usio, Inc. (USIO)

Next up on our list is a tech company, Usio. This company provides payment solutions for merchants and billers, offering credit, debit, and prepaid card processing, and automated clearing house payment platforms. Usio aims to combine card issuing and merchant payment processing options into a ‘one stop shop’ platform.

A small-cap company, with a market capitalization of just $32 million, Usio is nevertheless in a strong position despite the coronavirus market disruptions. While markets have lost heavily in the current bear cycle – even accounting for the rally we’re experiencing – USIO shares have outperformed and are trading above their late-February levels.

The company reported an 18% growth in revenues for Q1 2020, to $7.8 million, along with steady progress towards break-even cash flow. Usio ended the quarter with $1.7 million in cash on hand. These positive results came despite a net loss in Q1 – but it is important to note that Usio’s Q1 losses were 50% lower than in Q4, and beat the quarterly expectation by 14%.

Usio has also been able to take advantage of Congressional stimulus funds. The company qualified for a CARES Act loan of $814,000. The loan comes with generous repayment terms, and provides Usio with needed liquidity to meet the coronavirus crisis.

Ladenburg Thalmann analyst Jon Hickman sees a clear path forward for Usio, writing, “…we believe Usio's current market valuation is not reflective of the value of the company’s growing presence in the digital payments space. Given the expected increasing revenue growth and future earnings potential, we believe the company should be valued more in line with its current and potential earnings growth.”

Hickman’s Buy rating is bolstered by his $4.50 price target, which indicates confidence in a robust 142% one-year upside potential. (To watch Hickman’s track record, click here)

USIO shares have a Strong Buy analyst consensus rating, and it is unanimous. All three of the analysts who have reviewed this stock recently have come down with Buy recommendations. The shares are selling for just $1.75, and the average price target matches Hickman’s $4.50. The upside potential, 142%, implies that this stock will more than double in the coming year. (See Usio analyst ratings on TipRanks)

Ramaco Resources (METC)

The last stock on our list is Ramaco, a coal mining company operating in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. The company focuses its output on metallurgical coal, a grade used to produce the refined coke that is required in the steel industry.

Even with economic activity greatly reduced in Q1 by the responses to the coronavirus crisis, Ramaco reported a quarterly profit. The 5-cent EPS came in 67% over the forecast. Earnings weren’t the only positive in the Q1 report. Revenue came in at $41.9 million, or 2.5% over the estimates.

Ramaco’s main sales theater is the eastern US – but demand there has collapsed due to the economic shutdowns. The company has countered this by turning to foreign customers and accepting aid through the Congressionally passed Paycheck Protection Program. The $8.4 million PPP loan has shored up the company’s liquidity position, and allowed it to resume operations at two mines which were idled on April 1.

Lucas Pipes, covering the industry and Ramaco stock for B Riley FBR, notes, “…management pointed to a number of marketing successes in the first quarter, including renewing a relationship with a major European customer, their first test shipment to Asia, and a notice that their product was approved for purchase by major integrated steel mills in Brazil [...] While we currently see investors focus on liquidity, then capital returns, and growth opportunities last, we regard these growth projects as long-term options when market conditions improve.”

These successes put Ramaco in a solid position to move forward, and Pipes rates the stock a Buy. His price target, at $8, implies a sky-high 221% upside potential this year. (To watch Pipes’ track record, click here)

It’s not often that the analysts all agree on a stock, so when it does happen, take note. Ramaco’s Strong Buy consensus rating is based on a unanimous 4 Buys. The stock’s $5.25 average price target suggests a potential upside of 103% and a change from the current share price of $2.56. (See Ramaco stock analysis on TipRanks)

To find good ideas for stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks’ Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks’ equity insights.

The post 3 “Strong Buy” Penny Stocks That Could See Outsized Gains appeared first on TipRanks Financial Blog.

Read More

Continue Reading


Delivering aid during war is tricky − here’s what to know about what Gaza relief operations may face

The politics of delivering aid in war zones are messy, the ethics fraught and the logistics daunting. But getting everything right is essential − and…




Palestinians on the outskirts of Gaza City walk by buildings destroyed by Israeli bombardment on Oct. 20, 2023. AP Photo/Ali Mahmoud

The 2.2 million people who live in Gaza are facing economic isolation and experiencing incessant bombardment. Their supplies of essential resources, including food and water, are quickly dwindling.

In response, U.S. President Joe Biden has pledged US$100 million in humanitarian assistance for the citizens of Gaza.

As a scholar of peace and conflict economics who served as a World Bank consultant during the 2014 war between Hamas and Israel, I believe that Biden’s promise raises fundamental questions regarding the delivery of humanitarian aid in a war zone. Political constraints, ethical quandaries and the need to protect the security of aid workers and local communities always make it a logistical nightmare.

In this specific predicament, U.S. officials have to choose a strategy to deliver the aid without the perception of benefiting Hamas, a group the U.S. and Israel both classify as a terrorist organization.


When aiding people in war zones, you can’t just send money, a development strategy called “cash transfers” that has become increasingly popular due to its efficiency. Sending money can boost the supply of locally produced goods and services and help people on the ground pay for what they need most. But injecting cash into an economy so completely cut off from the world would only stoke inflation.

So the aid must consist of goods that have to be brought into Gaza, and services provided by people working as part of an aid mission. Humanitarian aid can include food and water; health, sanitation and hygiene supplies and services; and tents and other materials for shelter and settlement.

Due to the closure of the border with Israel, aid can arrive in Gaza only via the Rafah crossing on the Egyptian border.

The U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, will likely turn to its longtime partner on the ground, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, to serve as supply depots and distribute goods. That agency, originally founded in 1949 as a temporary measure until a two-state solution could be found, serves in effect as a parallel yet unelected government for Palestinian refugees.

USAID will likely want to tap into UNRWA’s network of 284 schools – many of which are now transformed into humanitarian shelters housing two-thirds of the estimated 1 million people displaced by Israeli airstrikes – and 22 hospitals to expedite distribution.

Map of Gaza and its neighbors
Gaza is a self-governing Palestinian territory. The narrow piece of land is located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, bordered by Israel and Egypt. PeterHermesFurian/iStock via Getty Images Plus


Prior to the Trump administration, the U.S. was typically the largest single provider of aid to the West Bank and Gaza. USAID administers the lion’s share of it.

Since Biden took office, total yearly U.S. assistance for the Palestinian territories has totaled around $150 million, restored from just $8 million in 2020 under the Trump administration. During the Obama administration, however, the U.S. was providing more aid to the territories than it is now, with $1 billion disbursed in the 2013 fiscal year.

But the White House needs Congress to approve this assistance – a process that requires the House of Representatives to elect a new speaker and then for lawmakers to approve aid to Gaza once that happens.


The United Nations Relief and Works Agency is a U.N. organization. It’s not run by Hamas, unlike, for instance, the Gaza Ministry of Health. However, Hamas has frequently undermined UNRWA’s efforts and diverted international aid for military purposes.

Hamas has repeatedly used UNRWA schools as rocket depots. They have repeatedly tunneled beneath UNRWA schools. They have dismantled European Union-funded water pipes to use as rocket fuselages. And even since the most recent violence broke out, the UNRWA has accused Hamas of stealing fuel and food from its Gaza premises.

Humanitarian aid professionals regularly have to contend with these trade-offs when deciding to what extent they can work with governments and local authorities that commit violent acts. They need to do so in exchange for the access required to help civilians under their control.

Similarly, Biden has had to make concessions to Israel while brokering for the freedom to send humanitarian aid to Gaza. For example, he has assured Israel that if any of the aid is diverted by Hamas, the operation will cease.

This promise may have been politically necessary. But if Biden already believes Hamas to be uncaring about civilian welfare, he may not expect the group to refrain from taking what they can.

Security best practices

What can be done to protect the security of humanitarian aid operations that take place in the midst of dangerous conflicts?

Under International Humanitarian Law, local authorities have the primary responsibility for ensuring the delivery of aid – even when they aren’t carrying out that task. To increase the chances that the local authorities will not attack them, aid groups can give “humanitarian notification” and voluntarily alert the local government as to where they will be operating.

Hamas has repeatedly flouted international norms and laws. So the question of if and how the aid convoy will be protected looms large.

Under the current agreement between the U.S., Israel and Egypt, the convoy will raise the U.N. flag. International inspectors will make sure no weapons are on board the vehicles before crossing over from Arish, Egypt, to Rafah, a city located on the Gaza Strip’s border with Egypt.

The aid convoy will likely cross without militarized security. This puts it at some danger of diversion once inside Gaza. But whether the aid convoy is attacked, seized or left alone, the Biden administration will have demonstrated its willingness to attempt a humanitarian relief operation. In this sense, a relatively small first convoy bearing water, medical supplies and food, among other items, serves as a test balloon for a sustained operation to follow soon after.

If the U.S. were to provide the humanitarian convoy a military escort, by contrast, Hamas could see its presence as a provocation. Washington’s support for Israel is so strong that the U.S. could potentially be judged as a party in the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

In that case, the presence of U.S. armed forces might provoke attacks on Gaza-bound aid convoys by Hamas and Islamic jihad fighters that otherwise would not have occurred. Combined with the mobilization of two U.S. Navy carrier groups in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, I’d be concerned that such a move might also stoke regional anger. It would undermine the Biden administration’s attempts to cool the situation.

On U.N.-approved missions, aid delivery may be secured by third-party peacekeepers – meaning, in this case, personnel who are neither Israeli nor Palestinian – with the U.N. Security Council’s blessing. In this case, tragically, it’s unlikely that such a resolution could conceivably pass such a vote, much less quickly enough to make a difference.

Topher L. McDougal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading


Diagnosis and management of postoperative wound infections in the head and neck region

“The majority of wound infections often manifest themselves immediately postoperatively, so close followup should take place […]” Credit: 2023 Barbarewicz…



“The majority of wound infections often manifest themselves immediately postoperatively, so close followup should take place […]”

Credit: 2023 Barbarewicz et al.

“The majority of wound infections often manifest themselves immediately postoperatively, so close followup should take place […]”

BUFFALO, NY- October 20, 2023 – A new research perspective was published in Oncoscience (Volume 10) on October 4, 2023, entitled, “Diagnosis and management of postoperative wound infections in the head and neck region.”

In everyday clinical practice at a department for oral and maxillofacial surgery, a large number of surgical procedures in the head and neck region take place under both outpatient and inpatient conditions. The basis of every surgical intervention is the patient’s consent to the respective procedure. Particular attention is drawn to the general and operation-specific risks. 

Particularly in the case of soft tissue procedures in the facial region, bleeding, secondary bleeding, scarring and infection of the surgical area are among the most common complications/risks, depending on the respective procedure. In their new perspective, researchers Filip Barbarewicz, Kai-Olaf Henkel and Florian Dudde from Army Hospital Hamburg in Germany discuss the diagnosis and management of postoperative infections in the head and neck region.

“In order to minimize the wound infections/surgical site infections, aseptic operating conditions with maximum sterility are required.”

Furthermore, depending on the extent of the surgical procedure and the patient‘s previous illnesses, peri- and/or postoperative antibiotics should be considered in order to avoid postoperative surgical site infection. Abscesses, cellulitis, phlegmone and (depending on the location of the procedure) empyema are among the most common postoperative infections in the respective surgical area. The main pathogens of these infections are staphylococci, although mixed (germ) patterns are also possible. 

“Risk factors for the development of a postoperative surgical site infection include, in particular, increased age, smoking, multiple comorbidities and/or systemic diseases (e.g., diabetes mellitus type II) as well as congenital and/ or acquired immune deficiency [10, 11].”


Continue reading the paper: DOI: 

Correspondence to: Florian Dudde


Keywords: surgical site infection, head and neck surgery


About Oncoscience

Oncoscience is a peer-reviewed, open-access, traditional journal covering the rapidly growing field of cancer research, especially emergent topics not currently covered by other journals. This journal has a special mission: Freeing oncology from publication cost. It is free for the readers and the authors.

To learn more about Oncoscience, visit and connect with us on social media:

For media inquiries, please contact

Oncoscience Journal Office

6666 East Quaker Str., Suite 1D

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Phone: 1-800-922-0957, option 4


Read More

Continue Reading


G77 Nations, China, Push Back On U.S. “Loss And Damage” Climate Fund In Days Leading Up To UN Summit

G77 Nations, China, Push Back On U.S. "Loss And Damage" Climate Fund In Days Leading Up To UN Summit

As was the case in primary school with…



G77 Nations, China, Push Back On U.S. "Loss And Damage" Climate Fund In Days Leading Up To UN Summit

As was the case in primary school with bringing in presents, make sure you bring enough for the rest of the class, otherwise people get ornery...

This age old rule looks like it could be rearing its head in the days leading up to the UN COP 28 climate summit, set to take place in the United Arab Emirates in about six weeks. 

At the prior UN COP 27, which took place in Egypt last year, the U.S. pushed an idea for a new World Bank "loss and damage" climate slush fund to help poor countries with climate change. But the G77 nations plus China, including many developing countries, are pushing back on the idea, according to a new report from the Financial Times

The goal was to arrange how the fund would operate and where the money would come from for the "particularly vulnerable" nations who would have access to it prior to the upcoming summit in UAE.

But as FT notes, Pedro Luis Pedroso Cuesta, the Cuban chair of the G77 plus China group, has said that talks about these details were instead "deadlocked" over issues of - you guessed it - where the money is going and the governance of the fund.

The U.S.'s proposal for the fund to be governed by the World Bank has been rejected by the G77 after "extensive" discussions, the report says. Cuesta has said that the nations seek to have the fund managed elsewhere, but that the U.S. wasn't open to such arrangements. 

Cuesta said: “We have been confronted with an elephant in the room, and that elephant is the US. We have been faced with a very closed position that it is [the World Bank] or nothing.”

Christina Chan, a senior adviser to US climate envoy John Kerry, responded: “We have been working diligently at every turn to address concerns, problem-solve, and find landing zones.” She said the U.S. has been "clear and consistent" in their messaging on the need for the fund. 

Cuesta contends that the World Bank, known for lending to less affluent nations, lacks a "climate culture" and often delays decision-making, hindering quick responses to climate emergencies like Pakistan's recent severe flooding.

The G77 coalition voiced concerns about the World Bank's legal framework potentially limiting the fund's ability to accept diverse funding sources like philanthropic donations or to access capital markets.

With just days left before the UN COP 28 summit, the World Bank insists that combating climate change is integral to its mission and vows to collaborate on structuring the fund.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/20/2023 - 15:45

Read More

Continue Reading