I agree with your conclusion that ATHN may be a good company but a bad stock. I differ on the point about it creating value for its shareholders. It depends upon which ones you're referring to. The insiders who had shares at IPO or who bought below 30 and sold at $90.00? Maybe. The ones who purchased anywhere over $40.00 or are still holding? I don't think so. A Return on Equity of 7.04% says otherwise, unless you meant something else.
Not my writing. It comes from an opinion piece under yahoo headlines that deals with good and bad mutual funds and ETF'S.
I think the guy's comments about being good for shareholders arises from what he believes is the irrational run from a share price of 20 to 97.
I actually do not agree that it is a good company. I believe it is a good promotion.
I have explained why in previous posts.
But I do agree that it was a terrible stock at 97 and may now present another danger that it did not present at 97 and that is that the totally naive retail investing public that knows almost nothing and the average fund "analyst" who is also a dufus will think that because it has come down 37 points on 97 that now is a good time to buy.
It is only a good time to buy if you can find someone more hopeful or dumb than the people who drove it up. Every month the founders sell thousands of shares and they own less than many of the funds.
There is no reason to own this stock. None. Further I know the field. I know what their software is and does. And what it is not and does not and I can assure you Bush knows nothing about any of it. If he did he would talk knowledgeably about it rather than yacking about starting an incubator or renting more space because ten years from now they are going to need it.