desperate!, page-32

Kakala:

Agitating, insulting, throwing mud (now scatological terms) won't substitute for careful research and analysis.

You seem to think that everyone else should do that for you, and give it in bite sized, pre-digested form?

Come on!

Then it is we who should "Lighten up"?

As for the cult like status you imagine MSB has, the more insults that fly, the less credibility you have.

(BTW those who claim the market is always right are themselves cultists).

Oh the irony.... Because the market doesn't always get it right.

No, it does not.

(I don't mind that, because that's how I make my money, buying undervalued stock).

I agree that Macbank was highly effective in influencing the SP.

The key question however is this: was their analysis accurate or complete?

(the corollary, is what Macbank did in any way ethical is somewhat redundant. If you know the answer to the key question, the answer to that one is obvious.)

The simple fact that MSB had to issue a corrective ann, to counter the inaccuracies and misconceptions (that's putting it very politely) in the Macbank ann is at the very least, an indictment of the glorious market that you so admire.

Bluntly put, Macbank has influence and they don't hesitate to use it, and they aren't too careful about little considerations such as accuracy and completeness when doing it. (Either that, or they're a bunch of incompetents in relation to biotechs, and distinguishing biotech leaders is out of their league).

You are solely focused on company value based on when product goes to market? Give us a break.

Take off the blinkers and then maybe we can talk. You are resistant to understanding the wider context, probably because you are needing to tell a negative story.

I will leave others to try to work out why.

To me, it's as obvious as what Macbank was up to. They were shorting and covering their shorts. Simple.