Re: Larscot, strength
in response to
by
Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.
Message: Re: Larscot, strength
6
Jan 04, 2008 08:33AM
Jan 04, 2008 02:13PM
You make a good case for business validity. By the way is business validity a real term or is it some terminology devised for just this occasion? I’m not much at research on the internet but I can’t find anything supporting or defining business validity outside of Agora. However, what I did find was that it is recommended that every company involved in new design should have a CVO (Chief Validity Officer) as opposed to having a CRO (Chief Reliability Officer) because validity will trump reliability every time. I don’t want to take issue with what you have said in your post because from a business point of view it is valid. We all understand that businesses pay out insurance premiums to cover those risks which could put them out of business and they enter into agreements that otherwise might have the same results. Having said that lets turn our attention to investors and I would ask you why a prudent investor, one who is not as learned as you or I regarding the challenge of the patents, would invest their money in the stock of PTSC? My thoughts are that if you call ten brokers and ask their advice about buying PTSC stock, at least 9 of them will call their stock analyst and will then tell you it is too risky or that they do not make recommendations of unlisted major exchange stocks valued at less than $5.00. Brokers are money hustlers and not stock analysts. The investor is then switched to an investment in one of their recommended stocks. Further, history has already proven that selling more licenses will not necessarily or greatly improve the risk an investor takes by buying PTSC stock. The risk of a business not having a license is not the same as an investor buying the stock. Those of us who own the stock realize that the question of validity puts us in an all or none situation. Prudent investors not having the benefit of your knowledge will not usually take that risk and an ordinary increase in the amount of money in the company’s account will not change that risk. I am not trying to bash the stock because, as I have said many times before, I own the stock. What I am trying to do is give some explanation as to why the stock does not go up substantially every time a new license is signed and why we are not attracting new investors when we get good news. In my opinion, something more than just more money in the bank must happen before the market gives recognition to the stock we owners believe has so much potential and I don’t think that just additional press releases will solve the problem. These are just my opinions and of course corrections are welcome. I wish for great things to happen to this stock during this year for the sake of all LONGS including me.
5 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply