News Focus
News Focus
Replies to #24750 on Biotech Values
icon url

poorgradstudent

02/26/06 4:13 PM

#24759 RE: io_io #24750

GTCB:

>But my anger is reserved for what GTCB did to the average holder - this was a Scam. Obviously the number of surgical patients was a red card from day one of this MAA. The MAA should have been withdrawn, that's how the EMEA works. But GTCB instead pulled the wool over our eyes.<

I think this is an instructive event. I hope it also explains why some of us are, by default, skeptical of 95% of biotech management. None of us are privy to the actual negotiations between companies and the regulators, so every piece of information that is relayed by the company really needs to be treated as suspect.

For the record, I don't think GTCB is a scam. What they did is no different than what practically all biotechs do. This surgery / pregnancy issue between GTCB and the regulators is only relevant to the "scam" because the CHMP used it against the company. So now everyone is upset that the company did not disclose it earlier. Well, had the CHMP voted ATryn on the market, everyone would be happy and nobody would be informed about the dicey surgery / pregnancy discussions that took place behind the scenes... So would a positive outcome have made GTCB's actions in this regard any more defensible?

No.

Biotech companies keep info to themselves all the time, based on their judgment of what they think investors should know, and what investors should *not* know... and no investor will uncover these pieces of dirty laundry unless they specifically ask the right question. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that getting all worked up about it is not mentally reassuring. These surprises are part of the territory when investing in biotechs.

What happened with GTCB suggests that the level of rigor on this board was not sufficient with respect to scrutinizing the reasons of the delayed decision. Or I missed it. I was clearly not diligent enough in this case.

Lesson learned.

===

As for the whole insider dust-up... well, Dew could be Geoffrey Cox and Walldiver could be Mitchell Gold. I could care less. I invest based on what I think and verify, so any losses are on me. Anyone who uses these boards to deceive investors need not worry about my financial health; they have their conscience to worry about.

icon url

Rodenta

02/26/06 5:30 PM

#24766 RE: io_io #24750

“I have not made any accusation.”

Didn’t you accuse Dew of working for a hedge fund? Didn’t you accuse Dew of being a participant in a conspiracy to scam shareholders out of their hard earned money? Didn’t you accuse Dew of making up a story about his elderly father undergoing an operation? You have a funny way of not making an accusation. You owe Dew an apology but you probably aren’t man enough to do it.