Michael; It seem quite apparent that you rely very heavily on Newsletters to do your research and provide advice on your investments. No one is going to change your thinking on that it apparently works for you.
I do know of several people including myself who have gone the route of newsletters for awhile but found more and more that we had to supplement their research with our own to come out on top.They do play a role and some are better than others but they are not infallable, they don't claim to be , and if their subscribers would just assume some of the responsibility for there investment decisions, have an open mind, particularily when the trend seems to be against them, and not hang the author of the newsletter for misleading them , perhaps they would find the author spending less time trying to support a sick recommendation. Heck, my initial lead for NVX came from the Dick Davis Digest in 1992. But it was my own research that has made my investment in that stock really pay off. I have been accumulating the stock over the years , buying heavily on any major down turns, Ironically, some of these downturn opportunities can be attributed to Sturza.
Back to your reliance on Newsletters which appears obvious in this case by the comments you make about NVX. If they were true, "well behind the competition", "least effective in terms of competition", and"summary on the stock in a nutshell" do you think: 1)that NVX would have been able to raise $86 million in a convertible bond issue that was privately placed and over subscribed? 2) Do you think that Abbott would have entered into their agreement with NVX? 3) Do you think that NVX would have been able to attract top level management from MERCK? efficacy and time to market were known factors before most of them joined the company .
The statements you make "well behind the competition" and " vaccine is the least effective in term of the competition" and "summary in a nutshell"are exactly what the shorts want one to believe but so far the market obviously is not buying those arguments and here is briefly my opinion on why not.
1) todate, Connaught is the only one with an approved DTaP vaccine, tripedia, and even it is not the one they wanted to go with.
2) Smith Kline Beecham got a partial recommendation for approval from the Adv. Committee for theirs, The jury is out on how and when the FDA will rule and even then if it is even marketable given the severe side effects of it.
3)Lederle, and NVX go before the FDA Adv. Comm. on the 29th; both it is expected will get recommendations of approval for all five shots. Some time after that they will get their FDA approvals. Lederle will than have to deal with SKB on their infringement on some SKB exclusive rights as to the use of a certain protein in Lederle's vaccine. When they will get to market is anyones guess.
So my question is how does one support the statement "well behind the competition"? Point is the statement can't be supported, but more important it is irrelevant. You are taking a tiny slice in time and basing the entire success of the company on that time slice; we are talking literally months here at best, not years.
Re your statement " NVX's vaccine is the least effective" comes from the data released over a year ago after completion of the various clinical trials by several drug companies. For some reason the shorts have chose to ignore the statements made by the FDA on several occasions that the trials are not at all comparable, the results were compiled under different criteria and the trials were done under varying conditions. Again the emphasis on efficacy is irrelevant. The FDA has stated the differences in efficacy are statistically insignificant.
Now "summary in a nutshell" is a real problem IMHO. I have some words that to me describe what is going on here but they are to inflammatory so I'll just say, to much is left unsaid. What about safety, what about the follow up combinant vaccines, etc. The FDA will tell you ; SAFETY IS THE ISSUE. Only NVX came up with O severe side effects. Re combinants, the longs think NVX will own this market.How come?Read my other posts for more.
Well, I do know that when I see the market in a particular stock going against me, I take it as the final clue, and abit late, that my perspective just may be incorrect and I start clawing for the facts and take action. At this point I am still a BUYER in NVX.
You know I think it was Soros whom once was quoted as saying something to the effect of : "Invest(big) than investigate, and reinvestigate , and reinvestigate, and reinvestigate, etc.
Thanks for your input, I don't mind abit running into a caution sign, I'll just keep "reinvestigating" :-} |
