JJB, thanks for the response: I think it is very adaquate precisely because
it does not attempt to defend what is indefensable. You make some good points,
which I am still thinking about. For what it is worth, that is an important
element, in my view, of credibility.
Your post has made me realize that there are really four groups of people on this
thread: (1) those that believe 100% in SOLV and can't even consider that anything
but positive results will occur and thus have "bet the farm;" (2) those, apparaently
like yourself, that recognize the significant risk in SOLV, but believe that there
is a sufficient chance of sucess (although less than 100%), to warrant a limited
investement, quite appropriately, to "the speculative part of a well-balanced portfolio;"
(3) those that are the converse of the last catagory, that believe in a greater
chance of failure but have limited their shorting to "the speculative part of a
well-balanced portfolio;" and finally, (4) those that are 100% convinced that SOLV
will wholly fail and have bet the farm on their short position.
Those in the first and fourth catagories are most likely to lose and lose the most, IMO.
If they are right, however, and they both adopt a big if, their total gains will be the
greatest. The second and third catagories, in my opinion, are the prudent investors.
Their positions differ only in underlying opinion, and their opinions are probably
subject to change as events unfold. Personally, I fall into the third catagory, and
my view is subject to change as events and conditions unfold.
I have prviously read the bios of the principals. They are impressive. Obviously,
however, lots of companies with principals with impressive bios never become
commercially sucessful. It is, however, as you point out, a factor to keep in mind
and one that must be considered along with and affecting credibility.
Thanks for the input.
Just my thoughts......
Troy McKinney |
