It is legitimate and fair to raise negative concerns just as you can raise positive ones.
Nobody sensible would argue with that. I certainly do not.
I for one have mentioned both just as aatisket and others have, however you attacked me instantly and did your usual accusations of shorting the moment I said I thought MSB had risks and was a speculative stock.
But ask yourself why that happened?
Why baldly state that "it's a speculative stock" without wanting to engage in a thorough and meaningful discussion about risk, including the false assumptions made about FDA clinical testing?
These false assumptions are in every analysts report; it's lazy and it's absurd to not take into account that MSB is world leader in a field which blows out of the water the risks which usually apply to pharmaceutical drugs. MPCs are NOT pharmacuetical drugs. It's a basic and fundamental point which it seems some want to gloss over.
I have explained why many times over, but posters like yourself seem to have amnesia or a mental block on the topic.
Many times I said it was logical that the FDA would fast track clinical trials, and for this I was ridiculed.
(I was right.) It's an absolutely critical point about the future of MSB. There have been others.
Where is the acknowledgement that I was right about that? It's not come from you, madamswer, fruitbat2, aatisket, kalala or any other of the persistently negative posters is it?
But I'm the problem with a fair exchange of reasoned opinion?
Seriously.
To return to the subject, posters such as yourself will mention the term 'risk', and 'speculative' without quantifying the so called risks nor consider what makes MSB world leader. IMO the so called risks have been persistently exaggerated and then to distract from that there is a massive chorus about the SP.
Many posters who are persistently (and I would argue, irrationally) critical of MSB, are the opposite of open. They won't allow fulsome discussion about risks (which are always overblown, and involve a barrage of irrelevancies), and intriguingly, do not allow anyone to view their profile.
This is their right but it is also very odd.
Surely you can understand that. Particularly when you take all the above into account and the fact that the insults directed at me have flown so plentifully from those sources.
There has been a mob mentality in here and it's unhealthy to try to blame a single individual (myself) as you have just tried to do.
Intriguingly the ignore option hasn't been used. Why not?
Is it because you have an interest in silencing me and trying to discredit me so that the message I try to convey is overlooked? Surely that looks to be the case, otherwise it would be a simple question of hitting the ignore button.
So you care more about what others think of my arguments, than you admit. A disinterested bystander (or investigator) could be forgiven for concluding this is what is motivating the personal attacks.
It would be far healthier, and more rational to explain more fulsomely exactly where you think the risks are with MSB. And why you think the low SP is justified. I can't see how it is justified, just as I can't see why you keep on using these labels speculative and risky just because others do. It's baffling.
Clearly the risks to the SP have been in the colossal manipulation and underhand behaviour of the market leaders, that's what I think. I would go so far as to say that there's scope for manipulation in chat rooms.
But go ahead and prove to me why the risks with MSB are just like any pharmaecutical stock. Why the market has priced it correctly, and why the manipulation of the SP isn't really going on.
Thanks in advance.
(neat change of tactics btw, almost as good as a madamswer pivot)
Expand
(20min delay)