To: willygs512 who wrote (50 ) 7/14/2012 12:12:43 AM From: sense Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 107 I've been following QCOR since before they announced their "changed strategy" with Acthar. I read the shorts "snake oil" sales efforts back then... and I've read through all the new crap they've put out now... The only meaningful difference between what they said back in the day, and what they say now... is that back then QCOR wasn't making anywhere near as much $ as they are making now. Otherwise, the arguments are unchanged... and so is the trend in the market reality. It shouldn't be news to anyone that companies do face competitive risks. QCOR balances the technical and market risks they face with an aggressive effort in sales... that appears it works. That it works appears to drive the shorts to distraction... which, it should, given almost 1/3 of the outstanding is short. Looks obvious enough that the short position is the only real reason for the sales pitch... The same folks have been been doing the same crap, and railing on for years about the same stuff ? And, yet, in all that time, even though they've found it useful to put up the $$$ to short 1/3 of the outstanding... they've never bothered to put a SINGLE penny into actually COMPETING ? And that, ultimately, is the proof that they're full of it. I would have cost them FAR LESS... according to them... to step up and compete with QCOR, rather than go short and bad mouth QCOR... and, yet, given YEARS in which they could do that... they've never found it useful to actually put their money where their mouths are... rather than to put their mouths where their money is. Bottom line, it looks like the shorts are betting, once again, that their effort in noise making will scare the begeezes out of enough people to have that effort in fear mongering matter more than the facts in the financial performance of the company. I think it is worth considering their arguments "more" now... if only because it is true that a P/E of 28 is pricier than the P/E below 8 this had back in the day. But, even with that... the pace in revenue growth... seems likely to continue eating the shorts lunch. I may not disagree much re the share buy backs versus the managements option awards, or that they'd be better served spending a lot more on R&D. I have similar issues with the management of a lot of other companies... which has never, yet, had any meaningful impact on them... Shorting JP Morgan because you think Jamie Dimon is a flamer... ? I'll agree with you on the second part. My guess is that the shorts are going to lose this round, as they have every prior effort... because they're simply wrong about a couple of things that matter a lot more than their posturing of opinion. The issue, basically, is that even if every one of their arguments is correct... the fact of risk in the market is always balanced against the fact of financial performance... and QCOR continues to put up the numbers. They'll win the argument only when the FACT of competition that DOES HAPPEN is reflected in declining sales. Until then... the sales ARE INCREASING... and that's real $ they're making... while the shorts posturing of future hypothetical losses... ??? They aren't real... may never be... and haven't proven to be over the years in which the shorts have continued saying the same thing... The "best" result you should expect to see result from their argument... is a declining pace of increases in share prices over time... that might begin to reduce the P/E over time... even as share prices continue higher... Like a broken clock... there may be some future point in time when they'll actually prove correct... They advise "caution"... which is always reasonable... etc. My look at things RIGHT NOW suggests to me that RIGHT NOW, this is still QCOR's time, not the shorts... If "the development of crushing competition in the future is inevitable"... why are they wasting their money shorting QCOR... rather than using it in funding the development of that mythical killer competition they continue touting as inevitable... over years and years ? I think the answer is obvious...