Comments on ValueHuntr's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/valuehuntr/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/160258-exiting-facet-biotech-on-biogen-s-offer?source=feed#comment-667039 667039 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:46:35 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/160258-exiting-facet-biotech-on-biogen-s-offer?source=feed#comment-664928 664928 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:42:55 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-510700 510700 Wed, 20 May 2009 00:13:22 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/136143-vanda-pharma-surges-on-fda-approval?source=feed#comment-493960 493960 Thu, 07 May 2009 12:07:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/131014-facet-biotech-value-investing-with-a-catalyst?source=feed#comment-464330 464330 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:35:25 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128877-trident-microsystems-net-cash-with-a-catalyst?source=feed#comment-447694 447694 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:51:19 -0400
Stein: Lying like this isn't going to get you support for the campaign, is it? Credibility is gone before the solicitation even began.

First error you made was to pre-announce your solicitation. The company was able to amend their bylaws to make it harder for everyone to nominate.

Second error you made is to try to run an activist campaign without owning stock. You won't get sympathy when you haven't endured pain in your portfolio.

Third error is that you have no plan at all. Why the hell would I give you control of a company you own no stock without a premium when you have no plan at all?





]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-440769 440769 Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:13:36 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-440474 440474 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:09:03 -0400
biz.yahoo.com/e/080821...

There is a thread on yahoo board discussing how GSIG grossly overpaid Excel, which even looks suspicious.

messages.finance.yahoo...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-440335 440335 You didn't get Elliot's point. You did the analysis based on 12/31/08 > financial statement at the best, while GSI spent all their cash on > 2/6/09 and even incurred a debt. > > GSIG may still be a great stock, but it was no longer a net-casher. > Many net-cashers, excluding biotech ones, usually have a major ongoing > litigation. My bet is on HLYS.]]> Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:02:54 -0400
I see your point. Where can I find the latest info?


On Mar 25 04:02 PM trackxyj wrote:

> You didn't get Elliot's point. You did the analysis based on 12/31/08
> financial statement at the best, while GSI spent all their cash on
> 2/6/09 and even incurred a debt.
>
> GSIG may still be a great stock, but it was no longer a net-casher.
> Many net-cashers, excluding biotech ones, usually have a major ongoing
> litigation. My bet is on HLYS.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-440334 440334 Research123 is on the right track. ATHX is a pharma company in Phase > I trials, meaning that it has to not only finish this round of trials > but make it through two more before it can start generating revenue. > This process could take years, which at an operating cash burn of > $15mm a year and $28mm of cash equivalents (2008 10K) it doesn't > have. The stock trades at such a discount because of the risk that > the company will run out of money before the drug gets to market, > the drug fails trials, and/or additional capital raising is not successful. > > > From an investment standpoint, I'd want the company to either liquidate > and distribute the cash or get to market quickly/license the drug. > For my taste, the probability of either happening is just too low. > If they get into trouble, instead of liquidating, they might just > offer more stock, debt, or attract private investors. These possibilities > would effectively if not actually wipe out common.]]> Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:01:41 -0400

On Mar 25 02:52 PM Davis Q wrote:

> Research123 is on the right track. ATHX is a pharma company in Phase
> I trials, meaning that it has to not only finish this round of trials
> but make it through two more before it can start generating revenue.
> This process could take years, which at an operating cash burn of
> $15mm a year and $28mm of cash equivalents (2008 10K) it doesn't
> have. The stock trades at such a discount because of the risk that
> the company will run out of money before the drug gets to market,
> the drug fails trials, and/or additional capital raising is not successful.
>
>
> From an investment standpoint, I'd want the company to either liquidate
> and distribute the cash or get to market quickly/license the drug.
> For my taste, the probability of either happening is just too low.
> If they get into trouble, instead of liquidating, they might just
> offer more stock, debt, or attract private investors. These possibilities
> would effectively if not actually wipe out common.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-440107 440107 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:02:40 -0400
GSIG may still be a great stock, but it was no longer a net-casher. Many net-cashers, excluding biotech ones, usually have a major ongoing litigation. My bet is on HLYS.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-439998 439998 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:52:01 -0400
From an investment standpoint, I'd want the company to either liquidate and distribute the cash or get to market quickly/license the drug. For my taste, the probability of either happening is just too low. If they get into trouble, instead of liquidating, they might just offer more stock, debt, or attract private investors. These possibilities would effectively if not actually wipe out common.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-437225 437225 If you have the opportunity to bet someone else's money on a 100 > to 1 long shot at the horse track and collect a ten percent fee (bonus) > if that horse wins but break even if he loses, you are going to bet > every long shot on every race. That describes the way Wall St. was > working. The only idiot in this scenario is the person whose money > you are betting and he probably didn't even know the game was on.]]> Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:07:58 -0400
Exactly. As Warren Buffett has said before: "If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy"


On Mar 23 03:34 PM henarl wrote:

> If you have the opportunity to bet someone else's money on a 100
> to 1 long shot at the horse track and collect a ten percent fee (bonus)
> if that horse wins but break even if he loses, you are going to bet
> every long shot on every race. That describes the way Wall St. was
> working. The only idiot in this scenario is the person whose money
> you are betting and he probably didn't even know the game was on.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-437097 437097 Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:34:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-436884 436884 Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head the other night talking about > long term investors and 401k's and the short mentality of the current > market investors. Puts and Calls need to be eliminated and stocks > need to be held for longer periods. I one want to gamble go to Vegas > or one of the many casinos around the dountry. Why should they get > to play off our 401k's and long term retirement investments?]]> Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:27:04 -0400
if your 401K or retirement funds are in stocks, and you were not aware of the risks of being in stocks, and you did not reduce your stock weightings when you had the chance (and the markets gave PLENTY of warnings that bad times were ahead), I would submit that you should look to yourself for the cause of your pain, not to Puts and Calls that have been around for many decades (and which are TRANSPARENT and serve many legitimate hedging strategies) or the time duration that others chose to hold stocks for (I for one went from being an investor to being a daytrader when it became apparent that holding overnight was a fools game in this sucking chest wound market, and I will go back to being an investor when conditions tell me it is "safe" to extend my risk duration). So does becoming a "daytrader" make me a bad person?

In my opinion it makes me a survivor.

If you want a disneyland ride, go to disneyland.

If you want to be in the stock market, learn what the risks are and either accept them or go to disneyland.




On Mar 23 12:02 PM Sailorman wrote:

> Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head the other night talking about
> long term investors and 401k's and the short mentality of the current
> market investors. Puts and Calls need to be eliminated and stocks
> need to be held for longer periods. I one want to gamble go to Vegas
> or one of the many casinos around the dountry. Why should they get
> to play off our 401k's and long term retirement investments?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-436719 436719 What's very wrong in this market is that it no longer offers anything > of worth to investors. Traders, with megabucks in programs that > move the market in drastic short-lived spasms, make any position > lasting more than a few weeks "long-term." This is, of course, ridiculous. > > > For the markets to function as they ought in a capitalist world, > investors should out-number short-term traders by a considerable > margin. Otherwise, what you end up with is a house of cards which, > like the housing market, will be driven to radical extremes based > on the effects of those moves rather than the causes of those moves. > > > I'd like to hear at least a couple of our politicians get serious > about regulating our capital markets in a whole new way - a way which > would make the markets an inviting place for investors. This will > take "out-of-the-box" thinking, which does not get the job done if > re-election is goal. I guess it won't happen. > > Back to day trading.]]> Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:02:47 -0400

On Mar 22 09:40 AM jvdplate wrote:

> What's very wrong in this market is that it no longer offers anything
> of worth to investors. Traders, with megabucks in programs that
> move the market in drastic short-lived spasms, make any position
> lasting more than a few weeks "long-term." This is, of course, ridiculous.
>
>
> For the markets to function as they ought in a capitalist world,
> investors should out-number short-term traders by a considerable
> margin. Otherwise, what you end up with is a house of cards which,
> like the housing market, will be driven to radical extremes based
> on the effects of those moves rather than the causes of those moves.
>
>
> I'd like to hear at least a couple of our politicians get serious
> about regulating our capital markets in a whole new way - a way which
> would make the markets an inviting place for investors. This will
> take "out-of-the-box" thinking, which does not get the job done if
> re-election is goal. I guess it won't happen.
>
> Back to day trading.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-436461 436461 Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:15:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-436263 436263 Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:41:39 -0400 Just Announced .
finance.yahoo.com/q/it...


INSIDER TRANSACTIONS REPORTED - LAST TWO YEARS
Date Insider Shares Type Transaction Value*
17-Mar-09 SHEFFERY MICHAEL BDirector 110,000 Indirect Purchase at $0.84 per share. $92,400
17-Mar-09 ORBIMED ADVISORS LLCDirector 110,000 Indirect Purchase at $0.84 per share. $92,400
16-Mar-09 SHEFFERY MICHAEL BDirector 52,200 Indirect Purchase at $0.65 per share. $33,930
16-Mar-09 ORBIMED ADVISORS LLCDirector 52,200 Indirect Purchase at $0.65 per share. $33,930
16-Mar-09 VAN BOKKELEN GILOfficer 10,000 Direct Purchase at $0.67 per share. $6,700
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-435920 435920 Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:29:38 -0400
The Itar-Tass news agency is reporting that the Kremlin's website is calling for “the creation of a supra-national reserve currency that will be issued by international financial institutions.”. But Russia is not alone. Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev is also openly calling for a one world currency. Nazarbayev's view is echoed by Canadian economist and Nobel prize winning professor Robert Mundell. Mundell, who was a key intellectual force behind the creation of the Euro, is also actively promoting the idea of one world currency.The idea is for the IMF to issue at least $250 billion in Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, to IMF member states as a method of placing a safety net under developing countries that might otherwise have to declare bankruptcy. Mundel has called for a worksop at the G20 on the World currency issue. many other G20 countries are on board.

The idea gained momentum Tuesday when the Moscow Times published an article revealing that the Kremlin intended to use the G-20 meeting, beginning April 2, to push for the IMF to utilize SDRs as "a super-reserve currency widely accepted by the whole of the international community.". U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is on the record calling for the G-20 to support "substantially increasing emergency IMF resources" by up to $500 billion to deal with the global economic crisis. "SDRs under the IMF proposal before the G-20 are going to end up being a newly invented one-world currency manufactured by a one-world organization, created to ease nations out of failed fiat currencies like the dollar,".The Washington and Kremlin-backed proposal would issue SDRs to central banks of IMF member states far in excess of any gold or currency reserves the member states have on deposit with the IMF.
This something to watch in my opinion. There is a good argument right now for a new world currency as the dollar is increasingly under scrutiny as the place for foregn investment, and inflationary concerns, not to mention trade inbalances worldwide. This will dirve the stock market down to new lows due to the devaluation process of the greenback in relation to the new currency. We have to look at more than normal evalutions as nothing as we know it is the same anymore. DO NOT TRUST THE MARKET YET! THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IS CHANGING.










]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-435713 435713 Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:07:02 -0400
After reading your racist comment, I first thought you were simply being facetious, but after looking at your web site and blog, I realize that you are actually simply INSANE (and, also, a really crappy trader: www.updown.com/member/...)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-435539 435539 Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:19:11 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-435507 435507 Convoluted Logic > 14,000-7,000 = 50% Loss > & 7,000 - 3,500 = 50% Loss]]> Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:02:27 -0400
On Mar 22 09:38 AM blkmtnbear wrote:

> Convoluted Logic
> 14,000-7,000 = 50% Loss
> & 7,000 - 3,500 = 50% Loss]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-435156 435156 Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:04:21 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-435141 435141 Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:55:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-435115 435115 Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:40:12 -0400
For the markets to function as they ought in a capitalist world, investors should out-number short-term traders by a considerable margin. Otherwise, what you end up with is a house of cards which, like the housing market, will be driven to radical extremes based on the effects of those moves rather than the causes of those moves.

I'd like to hear at least a couple of our politicians get serious about regulating our capital markets in a whole new way - a way which would make the markets an inviting place for investors. This will take "out-of-the-box" thinking, which does not get the job done if re-election is goal. I guess it won't happen.

Back to day trading.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127245-what-s-really-wrong-with-wall-street?source=feed#comment-435112 435112 Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:38:28 -0400 14,000-7,000 = 50% Loss
& 7,000 - 3,500 = 50% Loss]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-434655 434655 ATHX has almost no revenue and lost more than $4M per quarter during > 2008. Unless magic happens pretty quickly, the chances seem pretty > good that they will R&D themselves into C11, in which case equity > will be zero..]]> Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:19:22 -0400
You are right, without a catalyst, ATHX is toast, but we think Ormibed Advisors is precisely that catalyst. ATHX has no long-term liabilities, and has a tremendous cash excess, so it is very unlikely that the company will go into C11. C11 is meant for companies to restructure in a way they can meet their long-term commitments, but notice ATHX has 0 liabilities. Chances are that because the value of the company's cash is greater than its market cap, ATHX will end up in liquidation/dissolution before going into C11, in which case liquidating value is NOT zero. Its value will be at least the the cash available minus any long term liabilities (zero). In the case of ATHX, this value is nearly 100% higher than the company's market cap at the moment.

For more see valuehuntr.com

On Mar 21 02:44 AM Research123 wrote:

> ATHX has almost no revenue and lost more than $4M per quarter during
> 2008. Unless magic happens pretty quickly, the chances seem pretty
> good that they will R&D themselves into C11, in which case equity
> will be zero..]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-434300 434300 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:44:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-433612 433612 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:30:10 -0400
optt might have a great idea, but the product is far from efficient. If the company can come up with ways to generate more energy from lighter buoys resistant to corrosion then we would be glad to take another look at it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126729-the-ten-most-promising-net-cash-stocks?source=feed#comment-433142 433142 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:25:25 -0400