Investron's Track Record
1. He strongly advocated shorting ALNY in $50's. ALNY is currently @ $124. Did he do a mea culpa? Never.
2. He was pounding the table on ARWR in the $20's and even more aggressively in the high teens. When ARWR was driven into the single digits, he went AWOL from these boards. Now he is back making the same "to the moon" claims.
3. He heaped scorn and ridicule on TKMR only to see the market reward TKMR and drive ARWR into the single digits. Did he do a mea culpa? No, he went AWOL.
4. He advocated buying MRNA hand over fist at much higher levels.
5. He denigrates any contrary opinion no matter the source or how well reasoned the rationale. The fact that time has proven him utterly wrong and those he viciously attacks as right does not change his approach. Case in point, Blogger Dirk Haussecker who, BTW is again long ARWR. But rather than praise DH's stock trading skills as superior to his own, investron childishly and relentlessly attacks him. Every person on this board would benefit greatly from reading DH and disregarding investron's rants and raves.
6. When things go wrong, Investron goes AWOL. He doesn't have the class or maturity to admit mistakes or cease engaging in personal ad hominem attacks.
Somehow you got it in your head that the investron with the small "i" is different than the poster who pathetically sucked all of the oxygen out of this board many months ago. That is not the case. Simply click on the posters id and read his posts at different time points. If you do, you will see that the "investron" currently incessantly posting is the same one you say gave you headaches and made a fool of himself. The very same investron who said "mudbug021, you have mud for brain," (August 1, 2014) is back after going AWOL when ARWR got decimated last fall.
In a stunning turn around, investron, the message board troll who haunts the ARWR board, has a new revelation.
After claiming "it is all about the science," the self-appointed spokesman for science, now says "it has nothing to do with the science."
The impact of investron's change of heart was immediate and profound. investron's latest revelation has turned the ARWR investing world upside down.
Reaction from investors in ARWR ranged from silence to shocked amazement:
"Huh? You're kidding, right?" said a stunned TruthTracer. After reading investron's newest revelations for himself, the ARWR poster affectionately referred to as The Truth said, "This is big. I just wish he had figured this out when he was pounding the table on ARWR in the $20's or even in the teens. That cost me a lot of money. But still you have to admire investron. He supports ARWR without regard to facts and I like that."
"Isn't that a flip flop?" cried End2War. "He changed his mind so that's definitely a flip flop! investron regularly castigates me for changing my mind and all I do is try to honestly consider the pros and cons of ARWR as an investment. And now he is doing a complete 180 and the peanut gallery is going gaga. I don't get it. I just don't get it."
(Cont. in next post)
(Cont. from previous post)
A beaming investron spoke about his latest pronouncement, "Yeah, I thought up that one all by myself. I used to say 'It is all about the science' but now I say 'It has nothing to do with the science.'" When asked whether this constitutes a change in his opinion and therefore means he was wrong, investron's eyes turned to steel and said, "You are an idiot. I was right then. I am right now. I am always right. I am investron and you are an idiot."
The last person who spoke to this reporter was an ARWR message board lurker who says he is short ARWR. "We love investron," the short said with a smile. "He is clueless. He energizes the longs into extreme over-exuberance. That plays right into our hands. He's a phenomenal contrary indicator. Just look at his other calls. He's been dead wrong on ALNY, TKMR and MRNA. He's the gift that keeps on giving. When he went AWOL, I thought the party might be over. But his recent return was great news for us and coincided with another big dip. Thanks investron."
The greater "irony" is that you urged readers of this board to short ALNY $60+ points ago. (Have you covered your ALNY short yet? If so, when?)
You further pounded the table on ARWR only to see its price cut by more than 75% from it high.
Not an enviable track record.
And even more "ironic" is the fact that you have never done a mea culpa for being so completely and arrogantly wrong about just about everything you've ever posted on these boards. (This includes your posts touting MRNA and attacking TKMR.)
And finally, to add insult to injury, you insult every poster who dares express any opinion contrary to your opinion.
You have a lot to learn about investing and even more to learn about being a decent human being.
I am a bit surprised by your intrusion into the back and forth between investron and holdencf.
I well remember investron's gratuitous attacks on you for no reason other than you being a trader and not a long term investor in ARWR. He was clearly the initiator of mean-spirited & insulting posts in your case as well as in many others.
Perhaps I missed the post in which holdencf went after investron first, but I did read multiple posts from investron attacking holdencf in typical investron fashion. If true that investron initiated this skirmish, I wonder why you give investron a pass and holdencf a rap on the knuckles.
Has anyone actually toured the York PA facility? I've contacted UNIS ir and requested a tour/visit but they have not yet replied to my rquests. Anyone know who I should contact to arrange a tour? Thanks.
“A Lot Of Criticism Of The Management. By the same standard I could be criticized for over-promising the performance of ARWR stock. And that would be an understatement.”
---Truer words have never been spoken by you.
“But look at the science and what this science can accomplish. Then both I and the management can be accused of not being nearly enthusiastic enough.”
---Oh. The problem is that you haven't been enthusiastic enough. Lol.
“You people don't know what you have here.”
---Maybe. But is there any reason for anyone else to believe that you do? Your track record has been atrocious.
“I can not exaggerate on the potential of ARWR if I try.”
---Oh go ahead. Give it a try. Just for laughs.
“NVS dumped ALNY and got into ARWR in stead.”
---Some say it was a fireside sale but perhaps this is just your effort to exaggerate in the extreme.
“And ALNY is $126 to ARWR $6. What more do you need to know?”
---How about the fact that ALNY has more cash on hand than ARWR's entire market cap. That's right, more than $12 per share and more than $1 billion in cash. Or how 'bout the fact that ALNY has some very impressive partnerships with top tier biotech and pharma players. Yet you urged everyone to short ALNY 70+ points ago and constantly regale everyone else as stupid?
“Think of every day as that incredible opportunity to BUY at these crazy prices not to be seen again.”
---You always say that no matter ARWR's share price. You said that when ARWR was in the $20's. You said that in the teens. And you say that now in the single digits.
Lol. That is not what you said at the time. When you recommended shorting ALNY, you were focused on ARWR's clinical timeline lead with regard to HBV. You also touted ARWR's ability to quickly get a new compound into the clinic (AAT). Today's effort to explain why you recommended shorting ALNY is simply wrong based on your own statements made at the time.
Thanks. I took your advise. In the interim, I was contacted by one of the ir people. Basically, I was told UNIS doesn't provide tours of its facility on a one-off basis but if and when management selects a day to provide tours to a group, I will be informed.
Nothing I have said should be construed as a criticism of ARWR or that I am bearish on it.
Rather, I am taking to task investron's claims and assertions which he presents as both factual and unassailable but are mostly just figments of his imagination. He is a fantasist and a mean-spirited one at that.
With regard to your statement that "If the ship goes down, then I go down." I hope this is hyperbole. No investor should ever invest more than s/he can manage to lose without suffering a life changing loss. Discipline must always trump conviction.
Good luck to you.
Congrats. You have earned a diploma from investron for your quote at the top of this thread. Such a diploma award from investron causes normal people to want to run and hide. I suggest you do the same.
First, as Mr.RedRover points out, orphan designation means almost nothing. It is nice to have but no big deal until approval. Ask yourself, if you didn't like ARWR before ARC-AAT received orphan designation, should today's announcement cause you to change your mind and want to invest in ARWR? The answer should be no because ARC-AAT still has to pass all the same regulatory hurdles with or without the designation. Many compounds that receive orphan designation never get approved. (And BTW, I believe ARC-AAT has a lot of potential; but having received orphan designation does not make me like any more.)
Second, with regard to your statement, "it looks like ARWR might just possibly get ARC-AAT approved as the first RNAi product to hit the market...." while technically true (i.e., ARC-AAT "might just possibly" be approved as the first RNAi product to hit the market), the reality is this compound is literally years behind other RNAi products in the race for FDA approval. Take for example, ALNY's Patisiran which is in Phase 3 trials. Obviously, no one can say for sure what compound will be the first RNAi approved compound, however, I would be willing to bet quite a lot of money that it will not be ARC-AAT. (And I say that despite the fact that I am long ARWR and have absolutely no position in ALNY.) If you meant to say that ARC-AAT might be the first approved RNAi drug to treat AATD, that is a perfectly defensible statement. However, your statement (as quoted above) is such a long shot as to be utterly fantastical (though technically not impossible).
Best of luck to you.
Great post about your involvement with ARWR's BOD, interactions with C.A., etc. Although I certainly cannot confirm the accuracy of your story, it rang true to me. Therefore, I think it is great that you posted this info and post your opinions on this board.
A couple of questions:
1. I think you may have posted this elsewhere, but what is your educational background?
2. What other stocks do you like and, if you are so inclined, please say why and to what extent you are bullish on whatever names you mention.
3. Given the often dysfunctional, petty and ignorant nature of many of the posts here, why do you bother to post? (I'm just curious.)
"Maraganore is quite skilled in the art of BS. Hence the $11Bn mkt cap when ALNY has, thus far, delivered bubkiss, in the form of data."
---I agree Maraganore is quite skill in the art of BS and find his business tactics reprehensible. However, the notion that ALNY's $11Bn mkt cap is built on a foundation without substance seems demonstrably wrong. Your statement implies that they have delivered no data to support their RNAi leading market cap also seems demonstrably wrong. Were you simply expressing rhetorical flourishes to make a point or do you believe that the evidence fairly supports such a dim view of ALNY?
You also stated:
"So now he is stuck with GalNacs. Probably safe in humans bc it's just a sugar. But nobody knows if or how efficacious it w/b in humans." And "[i]t is questionable as to whether it [GalNacs] works in the liver as well...we shall see as ALN-AAT gets in the clinic later this year"
---ALN-TTRsc is now in Ph.3. My understanding is ALN-TTRsc uses the GalNac chemistry. If true, why do you assert we won't know whether ALNY's GalNacs are safe and efficacious until ALN-AAT gets into the clinic later this year? What am I not understanding?
Further, it seems accurate to say that much more safety and efficacy data is available to the public regarding ALNY's GalNac than ARWR's DPC? Again, what am I not understanding?
BTW, I am long ARWR and have no position whatsoever in ALNY. I simply want to correct statements--or my own understanding if I am in error--that I read repeatedly on this board completely dismissing ALNY, its technology and its programs such that the only explanation for its $11bn market cap must lie in BS, deceit and market manipulation. IMO arguments that fail to seriously grapple with ALNY's leadership in the RNAi space is a recipe for poor investment decisions (e.g., investron's full throated call to short ALNY $70+ points ago in June 2014 paired against a "buy all you can" long position in ARWR).
holdencf, I took issue with your blanket statement about ALNY's GalNAc chemistry being untested in humans, etc. I challenged that and pointed to ALN-TTRsc in phase 3. In response to my original challenge you now quote an unidentified passage from ALNY's website. This unidentified quote refers to ALNY's "most advanced" GalNAc chemistry called ESC-GalNAc which is not yet in humans. I had specifically mentioned TTRsc but you ignored that reference in my original post and now try to shift the focus from GalNAcs in general to "their most advanced delivery technology."
I am disappointed with your response. Rather than simply admit that you were mistaken or overreached or whatever, you staked out a position and then defended it with sleight of hand tactics against the evidence.
People interested in reading more about ALNY's ESC-GalNAc chemistry versus their less potent GalNAc chemistry currently used in human phase 3 can start with ALNY's pr dated 5-11-2014 "Alnylam Presents Key Scientific Data on Enhanced Stabilization Chemistry (ESC)-GalNAc-Conjugate Technology."
Let's define some terms, ok?
When you refer in your posts to "ALNY's GalNAc.v.1.0," is this the same RNAi technology that ALNY calls the "standard template chemistry (STC)-GalNAc-conjugate approach?" If you agree, let's call this "ALNY's GalNAc-STC." If you don't agree, please tell us specifically what you mean by "ALNY's GalNAc.v.1.0."
Also, when you refer in your posts to "ALNY's GalNAc.v.2.0," is this the same RNAi technology that ALNY calls the "Enhanced Stabilization Chemistry (ESC)-GalNAc-conjugate delivery platform?" If you agree, let's call this "ALNY's GalNAc-ESC." If you don't agree, please tell us specifically what you mean by "ALNY's GalNAc.v.2.0."
Finally, when you speak about the absence of clinical data, "because ALNY's GalNAc.v.2.0 has yet to enter the clinic," I assume you mean that "ALNY's GalNAc-ESC" has not yet entered any human clinical trials, not even phase 1 human clinical trials. Are we on the same page? If not, why not?
I am a bit unclear why you say this is "bodes very well for ARWR." Does it not bode equally well for all RNAi companies other than ALNY (and perhaps RGLS)? If you mean more than this and think ALNY's CC5 product bodes especially well for ARWR as opposed to say TKMR, please explain your thought process.
Also, isn't this ALNY pr for CC5 from June 12 and not June 14? Did you retype the date or copy and paste? Just curious how you got the date wrong.
hparch, that other thread is becoming a bit unwieldy so I thought I would start another thread here.
1. You wrote, "ARWR is on the forefront of ARC-AAT and ARC-520 when it comes to RNAi."
---If you mean that ARWR's AAT (ARC-AAT) & Hep B (ARC-520) RNAi programs are further along in the clinic than any other competing RNAi program with regard to those 2 diseases, then I agree. If you mean something else, please explain.
---If you mean that ARWR has the most advanced (or best) of the RNAi technologies among the available publicly traded companies, I don't agree. I hope that ARWR's DPC will (one day soon?) be proven the superior technology but reasonable objective analysis doesn't support this view. If you think it does, the burden is on you to show exactly what criteria and evidence you base this opinion on.
2. You wrote, "The fact that ALNY's recent results are good bodes well for ARWR because it is proving, FINALLY, that RNAi can be delivered to the liver, safely. This is the first generation of RNAi drugs to show safe efficacy - ARWR was the first with ARC-520."
---ALNY has had multiple RNAi programs in the clinic for the past couple of years. ALN-TTRsc & ALN-TTR02 are currently in phase 3 trials. What about the safety profile of ALN-TTRsc or ALN-TTR02 is less than satisfactory to you? What about the efficacy/knockdown profile of ALN-TTRsc or ALN-TTR02 is less than satisfactory to you?
---If both ALN-TTRsc & ALN-TTR02's safety/efficacy profile is "satisfactory," then your statement that "This is the first generation of RNAi drugs to show safe efficacy" is demonstrably inaccurate. And if this statement is inaccurate then your claim that "ARWR was the first with ARC-520" is also demonstrably inaccurate. Please explain where the disconnect is from your perspective.
(Cont. in next post)