To: Tokyo VD who wrote (1733 ) 1/15/1998 2:07:00 PM From: Anaxagoras Read Replies (1) | Respond to
<<I know what Joe said about other pharm's interest (term sheets), but since we have some questions floating about management's integrity, I'm wondering why you wouldn't question what Joe says about other pharm's interest in Vasomax.>>everything . The neophyte long investor takes everything at face value; the neophyte short doubts everything he hears, sees conspiracy everywhere- I'm not directing this at you personally, just trying to make a point with which I think you would probably agree. Now, the fact that there were three other companies interested in Vasomax seems to be a stupid thing to lie about- a good motive seems lacking, and more importantly it would be easily uncovered if anyone cared enough to do it. Third, the reason I take it on face value is that Joe impressed me greatly on the CC and I fancy myself to be a reasonable judge of character (although I've been wrong sometimes, indeed)- he wasn't prone to hype (I've seen those types). So again, heck, maybe you're right, but this just doesn't seem to be a thing worth a lot of doubt- they got the SGP deal, so it seems likely that others were interested- again, I don't doubt everything, I only doubt the fishy stuff. It's a policy that has served me well. :-)<<Furthermore, since you are asking others for "evidence" about SGP's due diligence what evidence do you have that these pharms were really interested (other than Joe's word)?>>
