Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DaveAu who wrote (13722)	10/7/2004 9:52:25 PM
From: Joe Krupa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14101

Dave, "Whither DMX now ? They have no money. They can cut expenses somewhat but will continue to bleed money. They have no prospect of significant revenues in the next 3 years" Companies with strong mangement that have the trust of the street can generate financing even with a drug that is 10 years off. 2-3 years is not a long time for a big pharma who needs a pipeline boost, especially when the product has huge market potential, already has completed many PIII trials, is proven in other countries, and has excellent odds at final approval. We also forget that with Vioxx being pulled world wide, and Celebrex not far from the same fate, capturing enough of the existing markets to be profitable should not be that difficult. Capturing just 5-10% of the Vioxx scripts in Canada will make Dimethaid profitable. The important thing here is that FDA is in play, which is less than we knew a few days ago. As long as that carrot is on the end of the stick, and management is forthright and honest with the street, financing will always be available. "Kuhne is dumping shares on the market" He only has about 5 million shares. With the volume we are having, the selling will not last long, and may have already been absorbed. "With the trials for Pennsaid on going, I doubt they will start any Penecure or WF10 trials any time soon." You obviously assume they will not partner for Penecure or any WF10 indications. I am betting the exact opposite. In fact I am quite positive it won't be long before the first partnership is signed. Dan and gang have made it known that partnering is a critical part of the new strategy. Furthermore, they have strong management depth in the area of partnerships, with both the new CEO and one of the BOD members, who has made a very successful career in this area. This story is a long way from written. I am extremely confident that the new management will turn this into a success story, despite the massive hole they are starting from. I'll say it again, we've all been whacked over the head by REK so many times that we're completely numb to the potential that lies before us. We now have a mangement team that though competence, honesty and hard work, will show us the shine on that gem. joe

To: DaveAu who wrote (13722)	10/7/2004 10:41:20 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 14101

"While I had grown increasingly wary of anything REK said over the years, I never believed all the accusations and innuendoes about her on the message boards, but it now seems they were all true." Dave, for a long time, I was just like you. "Switching sides" meant accepting some difficult propositions about The Markham Gang. I bad-mouthed a lot of people who bad-mouthed management, and eating my words wasn't easy. But sometimes one has to recognize that one has made too many explanations that don't really cut it, and seen too many departures from the norm to continue the exercise of faith. You don't need answers to know when there are just too many questions. The questions themselves are sufficient evidence of a problem. Some misguided souls have blathered that those who supported management are to blame for the delay in reasserting control of Dimethaid. They value their importance too highly. Until the major shareholders reached consensus, nothing was going to happen. The complaints on investor chatlines (however justified) meant nothing until the major shareholders decided they'd had enough. No coalition of minor shareholders had a chance - even a remote chance - of putting together the connections, the resources, the new BOD, and the behind-the-scenes expertise to make the challenge - the proxy fight - a success. Until the big players were ready to act, nothing was going to happen. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We vest an enormous amount of power in management. We give them our money. They get the media, and the ear of the public. They get good money, perks, options, employees, offices, and most important, our trust. Investors are a forgiving lot, really. They ask for competence, diligence and fair dealing - but they don't necessarily expect that those qualities will guarantee success. "Just do your best, and treat us honestly: we'll accept the consequences. Here's our money." How difficult is that? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What is it about people who get into positions of power, that makes them do wrong, then try to evade accountability? How many times must we see Watergate revisited, in different ways? If only leaders would learn to say: "Look folks, I screwed up. I made a bad mistake, and I want to tell you the truth, because it's going to affect us all." You said, "...I never believed all the accusations and innuendoes about her on the message boards, but it now seems they were all true..." That's just how Watergate started: innuendos, rumours, accusations. Worldcom, Enron and so many more demonstrate that once they go wrong, nobody has the jam to just stand up and say: "STOP! I can't do this any more. It's wrong!" The concept of "wrong" seems to just disappear. They work like beavers constructing elaborate facades to hide the truth. Pretty soon, the rumours and innuendos start. And while that happens, the whole damn thing becomes so falsified and endangered that when the truth is discovered, it all comes crashing down. It's really hard to find good help, these days. Regards, Jim