"Really! I think you're on the hunt. Your hundreds of posts in which I see Procrastination, Affectation, Agitation and Affixation designed to drag down those who support this stock is at odds with what you declare. I don't believe Hot Copper was conceived for your involvement, as you have said, to help you with your studies on confirmation bias. If this is true you are not engaging in debate, you are manipulating in a subtle way, those who engage in an open and transparent way to learn more about their commitment to this company."
@alhambra,
It is noteworthy, I think, that - like many others on this forum - your comments in response to my posts involve speculation about my motives, with virtually zero reference made to the factual veracity of my comments.
In others words, that which can't be known - namely my motives - attracts the overwhelming majority of time devoted to responding to my posts.
Yet that which can be known, i.e., that which is based on fact and on empirically-derived observations, i.e., the major factors/issues which I have raised over time which have affected the share price over many years; these are simply ignored and brushed under the carpet;
For example, things such as:
- the fact that the company has been underfunded (when many have consistently decried such an opinion over the years , pointing instead to management's routine commentary about partnerships as a source of funding), which has resulted in umpteen subsequent separate capital raisings;
- Teva's unsuitability and apparent reluctance to continue as a partner with MSB (at the time I raised concerns about this, it was pointed out to me that I didn't know what I was talking about and that Teva were committed to MSB for a variety of reasons, not least of which was something called "Biotech Deal of the Year 2010". Later, when Teva did disengage, a lot of those same people who claimed that Teva was a valuable MSB ally, promptly did a U-turn to declare that Teva were idiots and that Mesoblast were better off without them;
- The ill-fated NASDAQ listing which, when it was pointed out that the fees paid to the investment banks/under-writers amounted to something like 15% of the total capital being raised, implying that it was not easy to get the stock away; instead, the view of the usual MSB cheerleaders at the time was "the Yanks would understand MSB", where the dividend-obsessed Australian institutional investors failed to do so. Indeed, it was stated with much certainty at the time of the NASDAQ listing that the US market would be a major source of future capital for MSB going forward. On the contrary, after MSB's less-than-stellar NASDAQ debut, the company has steered well away from using its NASDAQ scrip to raise capital.
- When concern was raised about MSB issuing an extension to Celgene for the right of first refusal over certain MSB products, for zero consideration, this was met with assurances that this was definitively not because Celgene were wavering, but that it was in fact, because Celgene and MSB needed just a little bit more time to dot the "i"s and cross the"t"s. "Pens were hovering above paper" to sign the contracts, this forum was assured. We don't come across much being said about Celgene these days on MSB threads.
- Not unlike Teva and Celgene, when Mallinckrodt appeared on the scene, it was widely celebrated on the MSB threads as being the great partnership to catapult MSB into the future with ne'er a financial worry evermore. But when attention was drawn to Mallinckrodt's somewhat parlous financial position, which suggested that it had limited ability to offer much in a way of capital for MSB, this too was dismissed as just talk emanating from someone with a hidden anti-MSB agenda.... despite that "talk" being based on nothing other than the facts contained in Mallinckrodt's audited financial statements. In that context, it is worthy of noting, I think that MNK's share price is today trading at US$13.80 (an all-time low for the stock), having has lost 75% of its value since the time of the announcement, some 15 months ago, of the partnership discussions with MSB.
- Then there was the much-vaunted, but inordinately-poorly understood, Kentgrove arrangement (probably still not very well understood to this day); this was supposed to be the non-dilutive, magic-pudding panacea to all MSB's financial worries. Yet, after much fanfare when it was announced, not a cent had been sourced via Kentgrove; instead, the only impact the Kentgrove arrangement has had is that it has cost MSB shareholders the issue of a few million new shares as consideration for keeping the folk over at Kentgrove standing by in case MSB calls. Which hasn't happened. And probably will not happen, in my opinion.
- And then there are the often-made flawed assertions about the largest institutional investors making up 70% (or 80%, depending on the day) of MSB's register, which has been demonstrated can not be the case, yet the claim continues to be made, sans any substantiation for it.
And so it goes,
@alhambra.
All I have sought to do is to point out - using verifiable factual information - some of the erroneous conclusions encountered on these threads.
That you actively form an assessment on the nature of my contribution based, not on its
factual veracity over time (which is readily observable to all), but what you speculate are my less-than savoury
motives (which is not observable), is somewhat representative of the emblematic mindset of the MSB threads, and of those who inhabit it with a view to hearing only what they want to hear. But nothing else.
That you go to the effort of registering your displeasure suggests that you have a problem with the tone and content of my posts.
I don't know what to say: you can either:
1.) enter into some sort of debate with posters about issues with which you disagree;
2.) ignore such posters if you don't want to be exposed to their opinions, or
3.) report them to the site's administrators for breaching some or other HotCopper rule/(s).
