Hi Linda.
Let me answer your last question clearly and unambiguously. I have no relationship with Zonagen. I don't live near the company. I do not know any of the officers or directors. I have never worked for the company and have never taken a dime from them. I have also never posted on SI under any other name.
I have, on occasion, had telephone conversations with various people at Zonagen, including Joe Podolski. As I have stated previously on this board, this has been part of my due diligence on Zonagen. I have read every press release, looked at every filing and listened to every public conference call since December of 1996.
The fact that Fortune editors allowed this story to run does not mean they have thoroughly and fairly researched the company. There have been positive articles on Zonagen in the WSJ, Barrons, IBD and elsewhere. These are all highly respected publications. Some of those who are short Zonagen have attacked those articles and their authors. What about the editors at those publications? Are they any less responsible than the ones at Fortune? Those who feign outrage that somebody could question the veracity of the words that appeared in Fortune, were quite willing to make the same
observations about the above "respected" publications. I call that hypocrisy!
I am not questioning Fortune's intentions, although it is important to remember that they, like most media, are in the business of selling their content in a very crowded media jungle. Even the most respected media are capable of errors. Just because something is in print does not make it true. It would not surprise me in the least if Mr. Whitaker were in bed with Asensio on this. It would not surprise me if he used his credibility as a newsletter editor who follows CROs, to convince Fortune that this was a newsworthy and true rendition of the truth. It would not surprise me if Fortune editors assumed that his supposed expertise made an in depth due diligence on their part unnecessary. Of one thing I am certain; there has been a premeditated attack on Zonagen's stock by a well financed and sophisticated group of short sellers. This is even alluded to in the Fortune article on page 124, where referring to short sellers it said "Zonagen, in particular,loomed large on their radar screens," or "A day later the upbeat announcement was overshadowed by a scathing report issued by New York shortseller Manuel Asensio, who argued that Vasomax "has no commercial value." "
Is anyone out there arguing that this was not timed to be released after the Schering deal was announced? Is anyone out there going to argue that certain people were not informed of this beforehand? Was it a coincidence that the article which appeared in Mr. Whitaker's newsletter so closely matched what Asensio said? I did not even know, until I just read Tokyo VD's post, that this same Mr. Whitaker had written a positive article on Zonagen just a few months before. What does this do to the argument that Mr. Whitaker is consistent? What happened to change his mind? Did the deal with Schering somehow sour him on Zonagen?
Linda, have you ever witnessed or somehow been involved in an event which the media later reported on? I have. What was reported was only a small and very subjective part of what I knew really had happened. When we have independent knowledge of what occurred, we shake our heads at how reporters could get things so screwed up. When we do not have such knowledge, we tend to take what they say as gospel. Do not expect anything approaching comprehensiveness from the media. If not a hatchet job, this article was certainly one-sided.
After reading all the predictions of doom on these boards Thursday, I predicted that any major holder of this stock knew about this article and if they were going to sell, had already done so. In that, at least, I was proven correct. There was no major sell-off on Friday. I have heard, and I cannot say this with certainty, that about 50% of the float is now in institutional hands. Combine that with the approximately 25% in insider hands and you don't have a lot of stock out there that is going to be easily scared away. Short interest actually rose from January 15th to February 13th, from 2,764,386 to 2,836,448. That means that the rise from 13 1/4 to 22 was not short covering. The recent filings suggest that it was institutional accumulation. Despite three dud Asensio reports, the puzzling "Feldman Paragraph" and now this Fortune attack, the stock is holding most of its recent gains.
Although I believe that most readers of this board have already formulated pretty firm attitudes about Zonagen, I will try, sometime this weekend, to write a post outlining my reasons for continuing to own this stock.
BTW, I would still like to know if Robert Whitaker has a position in Zonagen. |
