>> these more mundane areas of biotech can sometimes be better investments than the exotic stuff.<<
gfp: I agree completely with that sentiment –the goal should be to invest in great businesses, which need not be based on sexy new treatments for disease.
SNMX: my skepticism has more to do with management’s off-putting manipulation of numbers to define the addressable market than it does with the business per se.
Regarding the “1-4%” royalty rates, these posts by ‘the_busy_ant’ struck paydirt in my opinion:
On the other side of the fence is ‘rkrw’, who argues that the 1-4% royalty rate must be legit because it is mentioned in the company’s SEC filings and the company was brought to market by “reputable” investment bankers (whatever that means).
rkrw could well be right, of course, but I tend to be a less trusting kind of investor and I do not accept something as the whole truth just because management says so. Regards, Dew
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated in any area of human knowledge!”