I thought I stated that the result of happening to be right about price was just luck. I would say the same things if the price held or went up. When it comes to action mediated by money how smart humans can be is finite and limited, how dumb they can be is unbounded.
It's hard to bet on ARQL. Conventional royalties are completely contingent on the practicality of the science. The 50-50 deal will have to be modified to induce a pharma to engage in a collaboration. I'd say at least 25-75. The 30 companies, most of which are listed earlier in this thread, will have a hard time surviving by themselves. Their commitment to speculative investment will be drastically reduced as they narrow their own focuses in order to reduce cash burn. It is my view that most of those companies have nothing, they're operating bankruptcies that would have been dissolved except the current era of stock market generated wealth has kept them propped up. Schumpeter is lurking though.
You say "favored characteristic" biasing. That begs the question. It assumes the truth of what is being attempted to be proved in the proof.
There isn't an effective procedure to bias arrays because you don't know if the factor introduced to accomplish that takes you away from the objective. The objective can't even be adequately defined either. We aren't dealing with behavior repeatable entities. The mechanical nature of molecular physics can't be completely pinned down. The determinism you imply evaporated when classical physics gave way to quantum mechanics and the regularity demanded of valid linear extension of molecular functionality can't be assumed. Whereas it would require perfect determination to provoke this reality to throw a monkey wrench into computation, it is that degree of perfection that is required to rationally project a viable synthetic. We're back to betting on the lottery of prayer wheels.
Let's say the wheel finds something that makes sense for whatever ambiguous reason. The next problem is applicability. The investment thesis has been that someone else worries about toxicity, domain, efficacy, and all the details of selling it. Some pharma is willing to pour out a pile of cash for some organic slop which might be of value? Not when the pharma's earnings are falling and not during normal times and not at the prices that ARQL wants.
Do you know what lead optimization is? If it was all that simple don't you think that research would have been into all of this over the last 50 years? The only thing that has changed is the complexity of chemicals creatable now. More complexity undermines the potential of lead optimization.
You can't accept that if prayer wheels are spun indefinitely, god wouldn't answer the prayer. I agree. Doesn't mean though that so many won't have paid and hadn't received benefiction.
Lots of companies and lots of hoopla spell validation to you. Sounds like you're a person who is easily impressed and mostly buys appearances. You should check out the emperor's new clothes. The crowd thinks they're marvelous.
Why would Gordon leave unexplainably in the middle of expansion? That is almost unprecedented. He knows the source of cash, promises, is rapidly drying up and expansion, new facilities, and the charade that has been going on propped up by the pretense of knowledge and expectations of eternal stock market wealth, is about to hit on hard times. Like Jonah he has to slink out of Nineveh. Get out while the getting is good and leave the leftovers to the bag holders. But the real kick is that the board is spinning a prayer wheel for another CEO.
An everything-development company is equivalent to its complement, a nothing-development company. When you are developing everything, just what direction are you going? Why, every direction possible simultaneously, appearances require whatever what works. Didn't I read somewhere that refutes the definition of organization?
Well, in the long term you're dead. So I guess it doesn't matter what happens in the long term. Everything you've said and all the above I
argued in detail last February. You apparently haven't understood a
word just like the others on this thread. In your post you've only
underlined that you have a wild gamble going on here. In my February
posts I mentioned that I wasn't all that bearish about the company in
concept. I thought it was way overpriced. I mentioned 30 P/E and $.10
for a price of 3, but they can grow. It's a chemical company that
provides a service function of molecular enhancement. Once some other
company discovers something of value, they send it to ARQL with
specific requirements to see if ARQL can generate a functional
equivalent that is cheaper to synthesize or has some other marginally
desirable property. There isn't much added value in this service or if
there is, it doesn't happen successfully very often, so the company's
revenues are not steady and earnings visibility isn't possible. |
