To all -- Following is a ranked list of the 10 most active brokerages involved in the health services sector, including biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.
1. Merrill Lynch
2. Goldman, Sachs
3. Cowen & Co.
4. Smith Barney
5. Lehman Brothers
6. Morgan Stanley
7. Bear, Stearns
8. Paine Webber
9. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette
10. Salomon Brothers
I have contacted each of these firms' biotechnology analysts to solicit their impression of the market reaction to ACEL shares, all things considered. In many cases, these firms do not provide such opinions to outside individuals. If any of you do business with any of these firms, I strongly urge that you contact your account executive. Tell them that you are considering investing in the company and ask them to solicit the opinion of their analysis department on Alfacell Corp as an investment. Be certain to explain that you would like a considered opinion, and a basis for that opinion, by someone familiar with, or following ACEL for that brokerage; not just a yes or no answer.
In addition to providing us with a broader perspective on exactly how the Street perceives ACEL, it will also serve to cause the right people (the biotech/pharmaceutical analysts) at the major brokerages to discover or reevaluate ACEL as an investment. As a secondary matter, if they receive enough requests from around the country, they may begin to sense that there could be something pending worth recommending investment in...
I think that if we are going to see a significant move upwards in ACEL shares and volume, it will not happen, barring a major news announcement, before the stock becomes marginable again. Let's all hope for that in July.
Also, I have had a number of people over the last 2 months tell me about all the people they know who feel similarly dissatisfied and collectively control "a million or more shares". Fine. Call them. Email them. Fax them. Drive over to their house. If they are truly dissatisfied, get them to communicate with me (see post #510 & the previous post to this one) and register their shares.
Otherwise, I find myself inclined to agree with ACEL management. We represent only a dozen or so disgruntled shareholders who collectively control barely 2% of the outstanding shares. I'd politely tell a constituency of that size to go pound sand, rather that change company policy that (a) I originated and was comfortable with, and (b) the other 98% of the shareholders evidently support.
It's time to get out the vote, folks. While I can, and am willing to do a lot, I cannot change company policy alone. If you want your investment to change, you are either going to have to put out some effort in contacting other investors, brokers, and news organizations, or you will have to play the waiting game and hope that the change that comes, comes for the best. I prefer the former.
And it's simple. Just furnish these brokers, analysts and news folks the basic information on Onconase and ask the same question we have all asked before... "What's wrong with this picture. If this is truly a wonderdrug for cancer, AIDS, and a host of potential other applications, why is it such a secret, and why is it $5 a share on a good day?" And, if you don't know the basic information about Onconase, you probably shouldn't be invested in this crazy stock anyway.
So, keep those cards and letters coming. But most importantly, take a few moments to contact some key people that YOU know, and ask them the above questions. THANKS in advance for your support. --John |
