Erthang: "You think Abbott signed a licensing agreement without verifying that the technology works? Pleazeeee!!!"
What you are in effect saying is that no product ever should be returned by a licensing pharma because they would have totally checked it out before they licensed it. Well, lots of them are returned. I was invested in a stock that got a genetic test returned because the company was not being totally candid about the extent of coverage of the test. Abbott may have had BOCX run some tests for them but they were run by BOCX and everything about the test is from data collected by BOCX. Nothing outside.
What is management going to tell you? "ABT is really not sure about this deal" He cannot tell you that, you would run right out and sell. "our stock price is falling and I have no other source of funding" No, I don't think so. "They are going to make an announcement next week" No, can't say that. "A test is really close, I can smell it." I think he said that but whatever management says, it always paints the best picture. What Reverse is saying is be careful when speaking with management. An investment broker I know is really cautious regarding casual information from company management. He told me it was the worst possible source of DD. You get a totally one sided view and it is alway rosy info. What he wants is outside sources and SEC filings. You go to jail if the SEC filings are false.
I wish you luck upon becoming wealthy. You picked a horse with pretty long odds. With ABT licensing the product, the odds got much better but it is still not the sure thing you think it to be. I am over 60 and I have reduced my risk factors with investing. That is why I set the limit at 18 months for action, then took the loss and bailed. The return would certainly be better here if ABT proceeds but I have a 99.9% money maker where I went albeit, not nearly as much.
