Interesting post and perspective as usual. I have to disagree somewhat. There are always exceptions to grand statements. E.g., I've a history of finding OTC pennies and troubled companies that have gone on to successs either through acquisition or moves to Nasdaq or AMEX. I was early in on AOL which was bashed to smithereens by a dedicated group of individuals, claiming it would never amount to anything, and, when it did, would not last because the generic internet would kill it. (Eventually, they were right but long after those of us in early captured our enormous gains. In my mind, it was killed as much by greedy insiders as by the lack of advance in the technology.) I can mention many others, early ones that come to mind ASKJ, CNET that survived and thrived through the internet bubble collapse. TVIN went from OTC BB at .20 to a respected company now about 20 x my original purchases. The jury is still out on HISC, as to its ultimate success or not, but I brought it to these boards at .0015 and have had close to a 100 bagger on sales of most of my shares.
In general though, I agree, with much or even most of your thesis. As Jill mentions, I preach that one can take advantage of the swing moves even on stocks that ultimately are destined for disaster. It's more a function of greed and fear, with a bit of knowledge of how the manipulators work, to try to beat them at their own game sometimes or for a little piece of the action. Until we get a more efficient system of fair regulations, with information and trading opportunities truly available to all, there will always be profit centers for investor/traders, as well as scam artists to make money. Some are better at hiding their handiwork as I often write the successes of hedge funds and market makers in gaming the system. Some, e.g., greedy or desperate CEO's, are more transparent.
A quick question back to your post.
You stated They had to stop the trial. The reason? The people who were getting the drugs to suppress their extra beats were keeling over dead with alarming frequency, at a much higher rate than control patients who were just getting placebo! So we suppressed their extra beats alright, but that only made things worse, not better!!
Now we know why that happened.
I may be the only one interested in the "why," so feel free to PM me the answer. Thanks in advance. |
