taxman, please allow me to offer another perspective to your question. In this annual shareholder's meeting, which lasted perhaps 1.5hrs or longer, there were as many as five "presenters", each speaking to their expertise (Dr. Rice on biotech, Shulze on operations, Ingram on finances, etc). They all spoke bluntly both to the negatives, and obviously to the positives as well.
When you go back and read Evan's entire reportage of this meeting, do you see *any*, and I mean a single sentence, that is positive or upbeat ? So I ask the rhetorical question...can this have been "balanced coverage" of any annual meeting. Does anyone on this thread think an annual meeting is exclusively a NEGATIVE AFFAIR ? Of course not - any company strives to present their best story - not negatives - at their annual meeting.
I believe this is what Mr. Baker refers to when he alludes, if not says outright, that Evan's "spin" is the problem...not that he may, or may not, pick out legally-defendable negative themes. He just does them in a vacuum, thereby ignoring and failing the concept of "balanced reporting", and, as far as I can tell and the worst sin of all, he writes w/ open malice.
On the biotech front alone, ABTX has had some decent successes (buying into Kimeragen when they had never taken an investment from outside supposedly); holding top awards in nationwide seed trials in both forage and turf for numerous seed varieties...many more. Yet, Evans devoted not a single sentence to any successes here. This company has some huge successes within their industry. Yet one would never know it from Evans' reporting. The indictment, then, should be that ABTX cannot seem to get their own success stories out to the consuming public to counter Evans and literally turn the man into a fool within his profession. That day will come IMHO.
I was watching Evans walk (I could better call it "stalking") around the room, looking for a negative story to write. I could characterize this guy as a 60s "Berkely-type", and while some of you might take offense (guess the "good" Cal-Berkely grads wouldn't like the generalization), I suspect a larger majority, would nod and say "yeah, I know what that type looks & acts like". A poster on yahoo mentioned Evans' "body language"...it's tough to define such an subjective term as "body language", yet, darned if I wouldn't exactly agree with that poster....Evans was clearly looking for trash and little more. That was my prediction at the meeting, and my hunch before the meeting. His "final" story sadly validated my hunch.
So if you want finite legal "proof" that he writes negatively, and doesn't present the positives, I am not sure I can provide that. Mr. Baker presents an intellectual argument to that point. I am not so gifted. I just know the opinion I've formed over these many months, and I now have first-hand evidence having been there in person and seen this reporter. What a sordid disgrace to Bloomberg.
Good for me - I have one less media source I need to follow ever again. I wipe my hands of the Bloomberg organization. And now there are so many choices, the Bloomberg organization should not be so arrogant to think word doesn't get around. Of all the industries who need viability and credibility, one would assume a news organization would be focused on this issue.
I did come away from this meeting with the confidence that, though this stock is at it's annual low right now, which every stock in the world by definition visits each year....this company is *not* going out of business. Put another way, now may literally be the best time to buy this stock if you follow this industry and want to be in a biotech play. I realize many will need technical validation the stock is coming out of a downtrend before deploying hard cash, which I understand and agree with. But I can state I am convinced that w/ the new management now in place, this company is focused in the right direction (get the basic business model to producing; let a buyout come as it may), and as Dr. Thomas stated when asked something similar in the meeting ("is the company going out of business or words to that effect), he said ..."no, it's too late now". My interpretation is he was speaking to his opinion that the company had reached critical mass and was out of danger from an operational standpoint.
Thanks for allowing me to offer an opinion.
c-man |
