Here's the comment that I just submitted to The Motley Fool in response to their incomplete assessment of ARIA's inherent value.
"I find it interesting that the author fails to mention anything about the significant market potential of ARIA's innovative pipeline of drugs in various stages of clinical development. This is no one-trick pony (I should have added: "or petri dish pretender"...DARN, I just thought of that, and I really like it!), as this ridiculously brief and incomplete assessment of ARIA's perceived value would have you believe. An uninformed investor who doesn't do any follow-up due diligence on ARIA after reading this article would certainly choose to pass it by at today's share price. Apparently, the large number of investors, including several huge institutions (Fidelity and Goldman Sachs being among them), who were willing to pay more than $18 for a share of ARIA for 14 months straight, prior to early-October of 2013, were all completely clueless about ARIA's true value. In fact, now that the FDA has allowed Iclusig to return to the commercial market with a more restrictive label, not too much has changed regarding the company's outlook since the stock was above $20. Iclusig hadn't been a large revenue generator at that point in time, anyway. I hope that another Motley Fool contributor will soon step up to the plate and provide a more balanced view of ARIA's potential."
I hope this addresses most of the major issues that a lot of you have with that author's "skeleton" assessment of ARIA, as an investment. GLTA longs!
So, what is this opinion of your's based on? You wrote absolutely NOTHING to refute any of the points that I made. You're even worse than the idiot who wrote "The Fool" article! Take your negativity and go crawl back to whatever rock you live under. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya!