If MSB is to be removed from S&P ASX 200...., page-20

"When a poster is transparent one can see why the comments are cast in a negative or positive light.
When doubt is cast and without transparency, it leaves one open to interpretation and since there is an element of fear, one tends to be react in a defensive manner in order to protect the investment.
I made my comment after reading quite a few of Travel’s posts and they do create a sense of unease. Meanwhile quotes by other posters who clearly state their position such as hottuna, aatisket and swerdna do not give such a reaction."

As far as I can see, Travelightor is as transparent as any other poster.

He expresses a sentiment, which is SELL, and he discloses his position as NOT HELD.

That's the exact same level of "transparency" as @hottuna, @aatisket, and @swerdna1979. It's also the same level of transparency as you or even @vinn, or @Harymeso or @Moreforme or @4Seasons, or@antibody, @cosair or @dolcevita (well, at least, I assume it is; I no longer get to see her/his posts), or @The Yankee (I wonder what happened to that enthusiastic bastion of first-principles, fundamental research?).

(In fact, @travelightor is more transparent than @hottuna and @swerdna1979 because both of those posters express their "DISCLOSURE" merely, in disconcertingly vague terms, of "NONE".)


A helpful suggestion for you: The best way to counter your "sense of unease" about posts made by @travelightor (or anyone else, for that matter) is to test the veracity of the content of such posts against some sort of factual basis and whether they are argued lucidly and cogently.


"If someone wants to take the role as the wise Elder, then some acknowledgement of all the issues both positive and negative needs to be made."

I'm afraid I missed the bit where @travelightor made any claim to such a role. No more than anyone who posts his/her opinion on this forum.

Why, there's a little bit of "Wise Elder" in the posts made by most people who are trying to convey an opinion. That's the nature of the act of exchanging of opinions and views.

(In fact, objective observers of these threads might be forgiven for finding some of your posts being coloured with some quite vivid shades of "Wise Elder".)

Maybe its the style in which @Trevelightor posts, notably his tendency to substantiate his views and to argue in a manner that seems to be well-informed and well-considered, that renders him some degree of gravitas in the eyes of others.

I took the liberty some time back of looking at some of the sorts of stocks in which @travelightor has holdings (he's quite transparent that way, he discloses it), and, interestingly, he seems to be involved with shares that do very well. Similarly, I don't see him holding shares that are dramatic under-performers.

As a matter of fact, I have been at the opposing end to @travelightor in debates concerning some stocks, and his opinions, which were different to mine, promoted me to think about some aspect of a business that I had overlooked.

In one case this new information helped me avoid a loss; and on another occasion I made an investment that I would otherwise have missed... some great examples of the synergistic benefits HotCopper in action, where the combined opinions of posters is worth more in terms of investment outcomes, than is the sum of their individual opinions.


PS. Just one correction needed; You said:
"I have noted you did on occasions say the technology was impressive..."

Now that bit of factual inaccuracy causes me a sense of unease, for I did not say that on a single occasion, let alone on several of them.

What I did say on several occasions is that, if MSB's technology one day proves to be commercially viable, then the company will be a financial juggernaut with a long and prosperous future ahead of it with many decades of growth in Revenues, Profits, Cash Flows and Dividends, which means that - once it reaches commercial self-sustainability - it will be a great investment opportunity. But, today, the company is chronically underfunded to the point of commercial self-sustainability.

(*) I changed the last sentence: it used to read simply: "The company is underfunded to the point of commercial self-sustainability", but subsequent to Teva's unceremonious disengagement from the CHF program, I have added the word "chronic"to more accuracy reflect the position as I see it.