I know this example is hyperbole, but c'mon we all got it already. And most of us will hang around to see if PPHM can make this thing happen. We know the risks and potential rewards. I have not been here as long as most, but it sure does seem that PPHM is a lot further along today then it ever has been.
I think we all understand that Gates has a substantially large number of shares in Microsoft as well as an incredibly low basis in those shares. So, no, I don't think your example is hyperbole. If anything, it highlights what I said regarding diversification making sense after you've made a substantial gain.
But, when you're an insider who's yet to make even a fraction of a percent of the sort of gain that Gates has, then no, diversification doesn't make any sense at all. It simply makes no sense to go and invest in some other company where you have little insight into what's really going on inside the company and zero control on making it a success.
And, that leads directly to your idea that we all understand the potential risks and rewards when it comes to Peregrine. That's not possible when you're stuck with an entrenched and flagrantly anti-shareholder management team. The result is a blurry line between what I think is an acceptable risk, the science not panning out and the unacceptable risk of a management team that refuses to build shareholder value.
IMHO, we'd be having an entirely different discussion if Peregrine was a one-trick pony with dilutive financing their only avenue for raising capital. If that were the case there'd be no point worrying about the stock price, much less insider or institutional buying.
But, that's not the case with Peregrine. They have a large and varied pipeline as well as a manufacturing arm that's growing.
As much as everyone talks about how much further along we are today, we've yet to see any progress on building shareholder value. Management simply needs to stop doing things that prevent growth in institutional ownership.
Regards,
moby
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
