Does anybody see the biggest flaw with the premise of the author's position? He said "Infectious disease vaccines are growing more competitive and most governments and hospitals simply aren't buying enough of the product to make the ongoing research profitable for many of these small biotech firms." He said that his issue is that he doesn't think Inovio can find anyone to purchase their vaccines due to the amount of competition there is out there. Does this idiot even have a brain. Please tell me what vaccines there are on the market for cancer, therapeutic HPV, HIV, Hep C, Prostate cancer, Luekemia, etc.... In order for their to be competition, there has to be vaccines that directly compete with what Inovio is creating. I guess he believes that if Inovio were to find a cure for the above listed conditions, people just wouldn't want the cure, because there are no other vaccines available to treat them. I hope this is as clear to everybody as it should be.
Highly encourage everybody to read Sean Hill's (the author's) bio. There's a lot of gems in there. My favorite is that he "loosely follows 1500-2000 companies." Yes, he has a buffer of 500 companies. Yes, the NYSE only has 2800 companies listed. Either he's either defining "follows" or "loosely" too loosely.
It's amazing who people will take stock advice from these days. Give a guy a megaphone and a soapbox and all of a sudden he's an expert.
Sorry, I had to post another one. There's at least three hilarious things in this one question from Q&A with Sean Williams: (1) his handle is TMFUltraLong; (2) he has friends that refer to him as "the Eric Cartman of the investing world" (I guess that should be 2A, and 2B); and (3) he has no qualms about investing in non-socially responsible companies.
Does ethics or 'socially responsible investing' have a place in your investment approach? How so? How not?
Generally not...my friends know me as the Eric Cartman of the investing world. I see every year how well the Vice Fund performs and I just can't see why I'd change my investing style if some of the easiest "gimme's" are in the non-socially responsible sectors."
Great point! Most people perceive vaccine as ONLY has the preventive measure. They have NO CLUE that INO's has the therapeutic vaccine also. It is our responsibility to educate the MASS regarding the facts of INO's vaccine technology. I think once when peer review comes out regarding INO's therapeutic HIV vaccine, it will really shed the light to the mass.
Would not worry about this one. He really has no clue about INO. He likely had to write one more blog for SA before he went home and looked for a stock that had fallen quite a bit. The earnings report is a non catalyst. The Merck rumor caused the spike...plain and simple. Nothing has changed. This is an easy one to ignore.
It is easy to bash something when it is down. The science is sound, period. Once the the first phase II and III results come out they will be singing an entirely different tune. Time is the great equalizer.
Exactly. Anyone with anything close to resembling common sense should be able to see right through this BS. What is more amazing to me than anything, is that given the misrepresentations I have seen guys like this and Adam F make, is that they have any audience at all. How do they have any credibility?