opinions/criticisms of the article? which one was better?
I personally thought the first one was better simply because I had more information from management. The second used a lot of educated guesses. I didn't get editor's choice fort he 2nd one so kind of bummed about that, oh well lol
don't hold back on the criticism; i have pretty thick skin. It will only make the writing better. thanks :)
mike, both were excellent articles, very professional. You are very articulate in your writing and easy to understand. Look forward to more on ATRS, and you would be well suited to write on other stocks as well.
I've already posted my comment on SA. I thought it was all around excellent and stands on its own merits (sans the first article).
Sidenote: Also, I eluded to this in my comments - doesn't it seem like Bob Apple is kind of a forgotten spoke in the Antares wheel? A very important spoke as well. I know on this board and else where, the focus is on Wotton, Howarth, Jooste but rarely, Apple. Yes Apple is the CFO and reviews the financials on the calls, but he is also the front guy in the TEVA relationship and based on Wotton's recent (very positive) comments about the TEVA/Antares relationship, Apple must be a big force in fostering this relationship.
One (minor) item I thought about after posting my comment(s), was the use of the 124k outstanding shares in 2017 when projecting eps. I know some number has to be used, so why not use the number today I guess, but by 2017, Antares will most likely grow that number, no?
Do no t let this discourage you but I have noticed many articles where the authors first is a Editors Pick. I think it kind of like a "Welcome Aboard" prize. But like I said, do not let that from stopping you. They were both great. Now if we could just break through this 4.40-4.50 door :)