Larry........ if you dig way back in the AGPH thread, you'll find a period where I got scared and bailed. It backed off about 10% or so, and the infant formulation and the "two PI" study with Roche were announced. AGPH had pulled off some big-time scientific and political moves, and I went back in. However, I went back at a reduced level, so I guess I already have, in a way, lightened on AGPH to buy SNAP. Would I sell more AGPH to trade for SNAP? Sure, at $140/share. :-)
AGPH is just too much fun. I've owned them off and on for years, and almost continuously since 12/94. I'm going with them, unless I see something new, at least through product launch. They were always a class, no BS act. Then, when it counted, they seemed to develop mega professionalism in both tox and clinical to complement the SBD filling the pipeline.
Very few people understand the culture at FDA. Regulatory agencies respect people who do their job and minimize conflicting BS. Some companies let data speak for a project, and others use political pressure. I once worked for a company where honesty and patient welfare was not a priority. Money was. FDA scientists can smell BS, blindfolded from the moon. AGPH has never had, IMO, a "money first" agenda.
My approach to investing in biotech........... find good science early. Find problems with the business plan before the next guy, and bail while you're ahead. If the science is good and the business plan holds water, stick.
Over the past few months, Johnson et al. have been oozing foresight and savvy. Fact is, they've been out-smarting their more experienced competition. Nah, I want to stick. I'm not suggesting it's without risk, however.
Funny you asked. I feel the same way about Mullinex that I did about Johnson.
Rick |
