Come on now -- don't you think the timing of this article is a little suspicious? Especially given what we know about the "Agenda" being pressed by these lawyers? Was there any new information about HUM's problems in the article?
Anyway, you and I already agree on the endgame here -- even the article states it quite clearly. The idea that UNH, CI, WLP are better companies I can readily accept -- that they are good investments now that the insurance cycle is turning may also be true -- but that their stock is a better buy at this point then HUM I believe is dead wrong.
By the way, I am no spring chicken to HUM -- I have been buying and selling it since 1993 getting to sell at 17, 22, 28, and 30. I am afraid I am not one of the disgruntled stockholders, nor will I be easily dissuaded that this isn't a good buying opportunity.
and can we forget how good a buy mckesson was in the low/mid 30's, with little downside according to barrons? (if you call almost 50% little downside that is.......) the list goes on and on. never has an entity with so bad a record been listened to by so (unsophisticated) many.