Ready4bluesky,
When you concern yourself with what investors bought into 15 years ago and try to compare that with the risk associated with the same company that Larry Smith 1st recommended in 2012 and I invested in shortly before his recommendation, you are not demonstrating a balanced perspective.
Almost any startup biotech is inherently a very high risk for long term success. That is why there is so much volatility associated with them. Traders move in and out with the various cycles at play until the binary events are expected. Surely you understand this. You also understand that trial changes and delays are part of the landscape. Trial design combined with clinicaltrials.gov listed timelines are the only guidelines investors should ever give any credence to as all other possibilities are generally just wild guesses, some more educated than others. I have mentioned more than once that 20 years from business start to some type of validation was the timeline I have used for looking for my original entry point. The idea, of course, is to buy in before others have more fully caught on at the double dip. I bought right and could have made much more money by selling near the high when the technicals indicated a reversal was possible but my time and target goals still had and have flexibility enough to see the investment through.
If the goal is to buy low and sell high you must give your investment enough time to reach your target. If the time is too short or the target too high you will never have the chance to achieve that goal. This seems simple enough but setting realistic goals based on timelines guided by what I mentioned above seems to be where many investors go wrong. Becoming disgruntled is easy but changing investment behavior to a very disciplined approach is much more challenging. I hope your ARGS works out for you as at least the 1 in 10 winner Larry Smith's strategy suggested is necessary to break even with the speculative portion of your balanced portfolio. Best wishes.
