Trading high volume, page-114

"You can't say there is zero upside. That's absurd. You can't say there is no chance any deal with come, that's also absurd."

Not only did I never once say that there is zero upside, but I actually said there is substantial upside if the company can get to the point of commercial self-sustainability.

But that there is upside I already know, as does just about everybody, I suspect.
There is no knowledge gap whatsoever in terms of the upside.

Everyone is fully conversant with the upside...witnessed by one enthusiastic poster even referring to the upside in "growing rainbow" terms.

But what I am struggling to dimension - as, presumably, is anyone else who tries (and there are not many of those) - what the downside might be.

So that's where I spend my effort and resources - trying to get to grips with the things I don't know (the downside), as opposed to simply getting reinforcement for the things I do know (the upside).

Some people might be happy to confine their research to just a single, or a few, aspects of a company, and often - due to human nature - the areas that people like to talk and hear about are the bits that reinforce their existing views and beliefs.

Me, I prefer to cover as many aspects as I can when analysing an investment opportunity - the good, the bad and everything in between.

And as I said, I know the positives with MSB only too well; its the potential downside to the share price - even from the current level - that I can't quantify.

So, not unreasonably, I spend my time assessing the things I don't know, as opposed to the things I do.


As for the probability that a deal will eventuate, I never said the chance of it is zero. But like you yourself have acknowledged, predicting what such a deal might look like, and when it might happen, is tantamount to speculation, and speculation is not the on which I invest.

Speculation is, I daresay, is akin to going to the very same Crown Casino that antibody suggested the holders of the stock were doing at $10/share.


"No wonder antibody is saying you don't know how to assess risk, and give it appropriate rating relative to reward, and I agree with him totally.

From Day One, when the share price was around $5.00 I expressed the view that there was a risk that the company was underfunded to the point of sustainable commercialisation, and that Teva was not an ideal partner. I was derided and criticised for it, and had my character well-impugned for it.

And today there is clear discussion about the funding situation of the company (involving the CFO, even), as well as the Teva relationship.

And I think that these factors (aka "risks") are having an impact on the MSB share price, with MSB's share price some 28% lower, compared to the Accumulation Index being 15% higher over the same time period, i.e., over 40% relative under-performance.

So that antibody or you think I don't know anything about risk assessment is fine with me; the important thing is that it works for my financial situation, and to me being more than 40% off than I otherwise might have been is - beyond any doubt - positive for my financial situation.

So, based on the hard numbers, I tend to back the way I assess risk, even if you or antibody don't.


"You can't exaggerate the element of risk and have no context for your claims. It's not a genuine assessment."

There can be no exaggeration when you are dealing with basic arithmetic: starting with $149m at the beginning of the year, and needing to have about $25m remaining at all times, and then utilising $30m per quarter, means that you have just over 4 quarters left [derived from (149-25)/30 = 4.13].

What is not genuine about that assessment?


"Ask yourself if the top 200 are selling? Or is it just retail investors getting churned by the big boys."

Not only did I ask myself, I actually came across the answer by reading every single publication - from cover to cover - that the company has put out over the past 3 years. (Given your passionate interest in the company, I assume that you, too, read all financial reports from cover to cover and in detail?)

And the news I bring you is that, there has in fact been a 5% reduction in the number of large shareholders over the past 2 years, compared to a 30% increase in the number of small shareholders.

So, no, it's not "just retail investors getting churned by the big boys"; it's large shareholders selling to retail investors.