CRA is the top example along with some B2B companies and heck even QCOM that valuation to vision does matter. CRA was a multi-bagger on the genome hype with a valuation that ate into any visionary forward looking revenues. You just had to sell it no matter what you thought of its business prospects because the best case was already priced in and in the risk/reward analysis there just was not much reward left. QCOM is still a great and succesful company but you even had to sell QCOM when its valuation ate up the forward looking rewards, even on a visionary basis. Still, I had hoped CRA would fare better but the government genome project, when faced with competition, stepped up to the plate. A tesimony to the merits of school competition there I think but not going there.
I am hoping that MNTA might give us the same "problem" someday on FOB hype and craze with MNTA being the only pure play and only company to dump the label "similar" out the window for identical. Toasting to having this sort of valuation risk/reward conversation on the visionary scale with MNTA in a few years.:-) :-) :-) :-) (it deserved a few smilies that pleasant thought).
Tinker - from the motor XOOM which I Cannot say enough good things about
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
