One important observation should be glaringly clear about Van's newsletters, he sticks to the facts and has integrity. It would be much easier for someone in his position to not address concerns or caution, or temporary frustration with one of his own picks.
If he failed to do so in this letter, I would have been concerned about whether I was receiving "just the facts mam", or some hype by someone trying keep up the appearances that everything is perfect. Only with the facts and clear articulation of what the facts are telling us, can we make the best educated decisions as to where we would feel more comfortable with the allocation of capital.
Generally with BB stocks, it's Management's ability to execute which is going to determine the company (and stock price's) success or failure. Replacing/supplementing management is often a major condition precedent to private equity/angle investor investing in a "good idea". The idea, no matter how brilliant, is (for an investor) effectively worthless unless it can be brought to market and converted to a revenue stream. (ala VSUL).
Clearly VSUL had tremendous opportunity...Van did not fail with the pick...VSUL management failed and continues to fail. Van raised the "caution flag"...it was up to you to decide whether it was time to leave or "hope".
I appreciate being told the facts...
Every investor should develop "an uncanny grasp of the obvious", listen to it and act upon it ... rather than remaining in denial and hoping...
IMHO...All 3 picks still have tremendous potential... Some are going to move beyond "potential" sooner than others...Van's newsletter is clearly articulating his analysis and rating. For some his perspective is one spoke in the decision wheel..for others it may be several..and for others it may be all the spokes needed.
ps. I always find the order of the picks presented as telling...
AI
