I do not believe that the company will or should respond. It tends to lend credibility to the gentleman, which they will not want to do, whether or not his points have merit!
However, the Wall Street analysts who have recommended the stock to their customers have a duty to respond to these criticisms, in my opinion. It is their job to address for their customers, who are paying their salaries with commissions, any concerns, whether raised publicly or privately. They could use whatever resources necessary for this task, including contact with the company.
As far as the significance of insider buying is concerned, I have read on this thread that it was financed. The key issue then becomes what
financial risk are the purchasers exposed to if the stock were to plummet. If it is none or minor, then the buying is of questionable investment significance. I really do not have the facts here, but could one make a case that the combination of the financed insider buying plus the new company financing is an indirect way for the company to sop up a bunch of the supply and get the price up? (If that case could be made, then I would want to identify what could be the possible motives.) On the other hand, if the insiders are exposed to
$120 million of financial risk, an extremely positive investment interpretation is warranted. |
