vin, ok by me, I don't want to beat a dead horse.
But IMO you and dew failed to reconginze the problem with GTC. It wasn't really the finances.
GTC business model was to produce already approved drugs via goats which would be cheaper than current means.
The problem was while the techology worked, the pharma industry didn't want this. (GTC remnided me of Ampex, a company I followed for 15 years, great technology few people need)
Nothing else really mattered. You can do all the analysis you want on all those other aspects, if the product isn't in demand, the company will fail. If the world needs the product, everything else will follow, great management, investment dollars, etc.
Great investment are hard to find, but they don't require a whole lot of analysis. They do require a very good understanding of the industry they are involved in, where the product fits in and can they actually produce the product.
I recall investing in Tellabs back the 90s, they invented the first ever digital echo canceler, I knew the whole world would buy their product, the company's stock went up 10 times. I didn't need to check management, etc, etc.
An simple example would be if a biotech discovered a cure for lung cancer, the company will do very well and that one fact is all you would need to know.
And Dew does a lot of research, I am not sure how much anyone else does. Have you called the CEO of MNTA, etc, etc. I expect most people just read what dew writes. Not much different from following Goldman advice for the last 12 months, buy oil it's going above 100.
It's not about doing more due diligence, it's knowing what is significant to the market place and what is not important.
Ignorance about the industry is IMO the biggest pitfall. ANd it's difficult for someone not working in an industry to really understand the dynamics of it.
I am content to let it drop, and good luck with your investments.
This will be my last comment to you on this topic. Somehow you can't seem to grasp that your position that less due diligence can make you a better investor is absurd.
Due diligence is a complete analysis of a company, including its technical prowess, future growth prospects, barriers to competition, and a keen understanding of the finances required to enable to company, and the investor, to become successful.
What you described, and what I acknowledged I did wrong with regards to GTCB, was a failure to perform due diligence regarding GTCB's finances. If I had put as much effort into that area as I did to the technology and promise, I would have made a far different and better decision. After rATIII was approved, Dew was pointing out how the big rise was tenuous because investors would soon realize how bad GTCB's finances, and management were. I scoffed and didn't sell. If I had done proper due diligence I would have realized that Dew was spot on and sold off some or even most of my GTCB, but alas I didn't.
In summary, more due diligence on ALL fronts would have helped me. By your scenerio, I needed to know less about the GTCB science to balance off my not knowing enough about the importance of finances. Ignorance is bliss in your investing world.
Are you trying to teach us on how to invest? What you said here has no values at all. If I were you, I would shut up. The more you said/write, the more people know about your brain cell and it is not very encouraging.
In case that you still bitterly dissappointed because of DD/frog response and want to challenge him, my suggestion to you is to open your own website and become a moderator (just like DD website). Let's see how many follower you have or if any in three months.
Vince, when you over analyze a company, IMO you are trying to justify why the stock price is lower than you expect. A good investment is pretty obvious. The next step is picking a price to get in and a price where is it overvalued,
What was GTC's business model?
That was the most important thing about the company. They had plenty of cash through the years to make it. But posters focused too much attention on their technology, which I always acknowledged was valid. Their business model was flawed.
What is MNTA business model?
The business model helps guide you to what MTNA valuation should be.
As I pointed out, I am positive on MNTA, I think it likely the stock will go above 20 sometime this year, I just don't think it is likely that it will be a multi-billion dollar market cap. I am not even sure it gets bought out, it's tough to determine if their technology is something that will be valuable for the next 5-10 years, or will other methods come along that are superior?
And while I don't like cramer, he is correct in saying MNTA is vulnerable. All that has to happen is TEVA gets approval on their drug and MNTA tanks.
IMO it will take long enough for TEVA to get approval that MTNA will be able to accumulate enough cash to see it through to the next approval, however long that takes. But that is just my guess, it's hard to handicap the FDA except to say it always takes longer than anyone expects.
Of course I knew my comment would provoke a response.
I know what people post, but I don’t know how they position themselves in a stock. Which is why I would suggest that if I wanted to follow the advice of an analyst, they should be required to create a portfolio of their trades that shows they actually beat the general market. Not that I expect any analyst to do that.
A lot of people don’t actually read an entire post, so to reiterate, I am positive on MNTA though I don’t trade it or own it.
I can't believe that you are trying to defend your absurd comment about too much due diligence. Obviously knowing as much as possible about company and the competition doesn't guarantee success. However, suggesting that knowing less would make you a better judge of an investment is a truly bizarre position to take.
I too got hammered by GTCB, but that wasn't because I knew too much, rather I didn't give as much weight to the poor financial position that GTCB was constantly in, the over-reaching by management by on too many projects, failing to pare costs, and by making a likely poor selling drug as the primary product pushed forward. I learned a valuable and costly lesson.
Stop trying to defend the crazy idea that you can a make a better decision by knowing less about a company because you are embarrassing yourself. Just say you suffered a brain fart with your less knowledge is better comment and move on. Sheesh.
On the more fun side, ADAT is up 24% today Vs 1.3% for MNTA.
ADAT is overbought, maybe it gives some back the rest of the week?
I followed ADAT since 2004 when a boiler room tried to "sell" me ADAT at $16.
I get some of my best short ideas from cold calls, it's like they preselect the best shorts.
It isn't worth 16, but I figure it's probably worth over a buck, maybe even 3 bucks in a bull market.
My prediction, in a couple of years ADAT gets bought out hard to say how much right now until I see their recent revenues.
This is what my friend the ouija board has revealed.
Bizarro, but true, you researched GTCB non-stop for years, yet it turned out to not be worth what you thought it was worth. You only turned negative when it became overwhelming obvious GTCB would get bought out for a price that would result in a loss for shareholders. Which was something I predicted was likely, if you review my posts on Raging Bull for GTCB; they are still up there. I predicted GTCB would get "bought under".
Even though GTCB’s technology was valid, it wasn't as valuable as you thought despite all your work in research.
Look at any yahoo board, IE: DSCO, the more people post the poorer the stock does. I am sure they research those companies, like AGEN they seldom work out.
Not a 100% indicator, but frequent posting has a high degree of correlation to bad results. Now you could say they do poor due diligence, but they do try.
And it was a play on words in the first place, I would have assumed you got that even if others didn't catch it.
Much of the future value of MNTA is dependent on how valuable their technology is. And it is very difficult for anyone who does not work in a research position in this industry to actually be able to predict how valuable MNTA’s technology is. How will future developments in drug development affect MTNA? How to predict if you aren’t in research.
Is the delay in the patent trial as you suggest, because MTNA only wanted a trial to “shut up” TEVA, or is it because MNTA is afraid it will hurt their patent position, which is more likely? Also hard to know unless you are part of the trial team.
I don’t really care for MNTA as a company because they are so dependant on what happens to TEVA. And I don’t care for companies that need to use the court system to enhance shareholder values. But I figure they have enough cash flow now to at least move up faster that the SP, which IMO isn’t going to move up very fast, the SP may move sideways to slighly down.
It may turn out that MNTA is all you hope it to be, but it isn’t a slam dunk by any means, and there are more obvious plays in the market.
On the positive side, absent negative news, the stock won't go down much either and should continue a slow climb.
take care and I hope MNTA eventaully gets bought out just like IMCL and SCIO did.