My feelings exactly. About 2 years I held 200,000 shares in SPL when it was around $1.60. I decided to hedge and lock in some gains, even though at the time I felt like I was making a mistake. But I rolled most of those funds into other shares - most of which have at least doubled since then, while SPL has floundered. When the FDA rejection came through I sold most of my remaning SPL shares @ $1.29. Fortuitously, I rolled that into PAR and PNV when they were around $1, they are both $2.47 and $2.21 respectively now, which is about half of what I thought SPL would be by now. All three of these companies have massive potential, but the key difference between all of them is management, pure and simple.
I learnt the hard way years ago about opportunity cost, and SPL has been a textbook example of that. I only hold 20,000 shares now, but the 90% holding I sold from two years ago has doubled my returns since then rather than lose another 30%. And I know that if a BIG announcement drops for SPL, whatever that may me, I can still jump back in with the money made elsewhere, probably for less than I sold, rather than staring into the bottom of an empty pot. The fact is, when you hold on to an underperforimg stock for too long, you usually end up having to sell at a loss to pay for life's expenses. If I hadn't decided to start reducing SPL when I did, not only would I have missed the other opportunities which have saved my backside, I would have been forced to sell all my SPL shares by now anyway. At least now I still have some skin in the game for any upside, but can also afford to write the rest off if necessary.
