| | | >>I have been in the position of telling clients that very thing pretty often so I have some sympathy. Personally I'd like details as well. That said, venBio would risk anything specific they said weakening their position wrt the proxy fight or be insider info, neither are things I'd risk if I were them. They claim the don't have the latter, and the former is just bad negotiating.<<
For me, whatever the reasons they couldn't, or just chose not to reply to certain questions about how they would proceed should they take the helm, the result is the same. This is a NY hedge fund that is coming relatively late to the party, and we should have questions about their intentions. That's not participating in a straw-man fallacy. I think it's being reasonably skeptical. To what end? Adjusting my investment thesis in IMMU in terms of risk/reward. If venBIo's strategy is to milk every last penny out of IMMU-132 and the rest of th IMMU pipeline over the long-term, that is one thing. If it is to dress it up and stage it for a quick sale, that is entirely another. I'm not buying into what they say simply because they say it, nor will I assume certain things even though they refuse to confirm or comment on them. Change is scary, but I've come to a place where I believe the status quo to be scarier. |
|
