One popular opinion is that Karmazin may make some sort of announcement at the conference, which will be held in New York City. In my opinion news may come earlier than that, as it would be more likely that Karmazin would want to have news out prior to speaking.

Liberty Media is on the cusp of gaining control of Sirius XM and currently has an application filed with the FCC for de jure control of the satellite radio company. The FCC has not officially accepted the filing as yet or opened the issue up for comment. Also up in the air is Karmazin's employment status. His contract expires this year.

Other developments are September 2012 auto sales figures which are scheduled to be released today. The numbers should be good, and I laid out an expectation that the company needs to raise current subscriber guidance as it will likely finish Q3 within a stones throw of the existing guidance of 1.6 million subscribers for 2012.

It would appear that the stars are aligning for a good move in Sirius XM. Fasten your seat belts, because it could get interesting and $2.75 in the near term is not out of reach.

Disclosure: I am long [[SIRI]], [[LMCA]]. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

P Man stated:

"I think the best thing both VVUS and ARNA can do is to NOT run negative campaigns against each other. What needs to be marketed here is not necessarily one drug versus the other, but the 'idea of taking a weight loss pill is a good idea'. There are an estimated 500 million obese people on this planet which is more than enough for 2 companies to support. If only 1 in 20 take the jump from just diet and exercise to diet and exercise and pharmaceutical help, that's 25 million prescriptions. In other words, a $50 billion industry (using the standard $2000/yr per script figure).

Whether that's split 50-50, 60-40, 70-30 or even 80-20, who cares? Each company will make a fortune.

However, if they spend all their money trashing how dangerous or ineffective the other one is, the take home message to the consumer will only be: these drugs either don't work or are too risky to try. Hence, 1 in 20 becomes 1 in 100 or 1 in 500 or even worse.

The product here is the idea of taking a weight loss drug. VVUS and ARNA just need to sell that. Everything else will take care of itself."

Kudos to P Man for seeing the bigger picture and bigger potential of the issue at hand. My hat is off to you. In my first piece I spoke of my experience with satellite radio provider Sirius XM (SIRI). As an early adopter of that product I saw first hand the damages that over competitiveness can bring.

The founder of satellite radio, Martine Rothblat appealed strenuously to the FCC to allow satellite radio to develop as a single company. Early on in my writing about the subject I had indicated that the two company approach actually served to harm Sirius and XM rather than help it. Automakers were forced to take sides and choose one company over another. Had there been an interoperable radio, or one service the adoption of satellite radio in the auto sector would have been much shorter, leading to profits much sooner, and perhaps avoiding the calamity that ultimately became a merger and near bankruptcy.

P Man sees the bigger picture and let's hope that Arena and Vivus see it as well. There is indeed plenty of room in the marketplace for more than one weight loss drug. The key is getting the marketplace to accept the concept of a weight loss pill.

That being said, we live in a competitive society, and there will indeed be natural competition between these drug companies as well as those that invest in them. In learning my lessons from the past, I started looking at these companies and see what I feel is an advantage in one over the other. That does not mean that both can not have success and even a big chunk of market share. In comparison, Coke has a market share lead over Pepsi, but both could be great investments.

What I see here is a different dynamic than we had in satellite radio. Getting a drug first to market can carry a massive advantage. In my mind it appears that Arena has the lead here. Getting a drug to market that can tackle weight as well as Type 2 Diabetes is another big positive that I see in Arena and its Belviq product.

Marketing will indeed be a huge factor in this. How often do you see an advertisement prompting you to ask your doctor about one drug or another? Pharmaceutical companies have gone way beyond sending representatives out in the field to meet with doctors. They are appealing directly to consumers. An effective campaign can be the difference between moderate success and overwhelming success.

While this may sound callous, investors are in the market to make money. Betting on one company over another as they race to get something to market is part of the game. Yes, I know that the health and well being of the public is an issue, but that is a moral consideration each investor has to deal with as they make the decision of whether or not to even invest.

From the narrow standpoint of Arena's Belviq vs. Vivus's Qsymia, I see Belviq as carrying the investment advantage:

• I think Arena's Belviq has an easier path to market and will gain EU approval more quickly setting the stage for another run. With a three week lead in the FDA process and less restrictions, Belviq has extreme potential to have an easier trip through the EU process.
• I see Belviq's benefits on Type 2 diabetes giving it another marketing advantage that many have yet to focus on providing yet another path to consumer use.
• I see Arena as having had a full haircut in share price after the run-up on the FDA approval of Belviq. Support has been found and the stage is setting up for another run.
• Once approvals are gained I see Belviq as having in the enviable position of being first to market. This can carry a distinct advantage, in particular if it is marketed strongly to potential end users.

Let us hope that the marketing can stay with a focus on each respective product and not get into mud slinging.

Disclosure: I am long [[SIRI]], [[ARNA]].

1. If I own the equity and the information is positive it must be true.

OR

2. If I own an equity and the information is negative it must be not only false, but an evil plot by manipulating hedge funds and shorts to control the price

If you want to see this in action, take a minute to visit the Yahoo message boards and look up the Sirius XM board (NASDAQ:[[SIRI]] or the Pandora board (NYSE:[[P]]. Type "seeking alpha" into the search bar and look at the number of people that can not even figure out what Seeking Alpha really is. Poster after poster will arrive at the opinion that Seeking Alpha has some sort of axe to grind or pom-pom to wave either for against Sirius XM or Pandora. I am sure the same holds true for other popular equities.

What I find amazing is that it would appear that reader after reader does not even comprehend what Seeking Alpha is! Seeking Alpha is a website dedicated to the markets. The articles published there do not reflect the opinions of Seeking Alpha, but rather the individual writers themselves, and to be clear, I DO NOT SPEAK FOR SEEKING ALPHA.

When you see 5 bearish articles about an equity on Seeking Alpha, it is not because Seeking Alpha wants to tank a stock. It is that 5 separate authors saw something with that equity that presented a concern. Just that simple fact alone has value. If 5 separate authors all arrive at a similar conclusion regarding an equity, then certainly there might be something there that represents a clue as to the perception of the company. The same holds true when you see a bunch of positive articles.

In my mind Seeking Alpha is simply one tool in the belt of an investor. It is a place where you can get opinions of seasoned investors as well as the small budget day trader that simply loves to follow the market or a particular equity.

Not long ago I submitted two articles to seeking Alpha on the same day. They were published within hours of each other. One could be considered a critical piece leaning toward bearishness, and the other was a longer term outlook that was more bullish. One would think that if Seeking Alpha had some sort of agenda, they would have nixed one of the articles. However, they did nothing of the sort, and published both.

The opportunity investors have with seeking Alpha is the ability to see various opinions on an equity from people of different backgrounds. You do not get that with an analyst report or a press release. You can get it here.

The opinions that writers have can be good, bad, ugly, or indifferent. A less seasoned writer can carry an opinion and learn from the comment dialogue to view the issue from a different angle. Fellow contributor Crunching Numbers and I frequently have discussion right in the comment section of an article. I show him a viewpoint from one angle and he another. I does not make either of is right or wrong, but does make us both better investors.

Certainly Sirius XM and Pandora are popular. They are heavily traded, and both companies have passionate fans and investors. In the fever of defending an equity sometimes readers can get lost in detail that does not matter. I am invested in Sirius XM. I have never owned a share of Pandora. That does not mean that i have to hate Pandora. It does not mean that I have to love Sirius XM. Somehow though, In an article about the auto sector and Sirius XM there will always be a comment such as, "Bet You Are Upset About Pandora's Results". What on earth does an article about Sirius XM and the auto sector have to do with Pandora and their results? The answer is NOTHING. However, it does demonstrate that some people can not separate the equity from their life, and thus are perhaps too invested. In other words they have tied their emotions to an equity.

A savvy investor understands that information is valuable. Ignore Seeking Alpha because a few authors are now bullish? That is not very prudent. Instead, value a service like Seeking Alpha for what it represents. Varied thought and opinion on a company.

Before you comment (on any article), take a moment and ask yourself whether your comment will add value to the discussion, or whether it is representing an axe to grind. Sounds simple, but it isn't. Most who are too emotionally invested are not even aware that this is the case.
Sirius XM and Pandora can both do very well and thrive. There is no reason for one to fear the other, and no reason that investors should have to hate the other company. Instead, investors in either should keep tabs on both companies because the news for either can be important for the other.

Again, my words do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Seeking Alpha.

Disclosure: I am long [[SIRI]].