Wino115 wrote: If NBF didn't at least review oncology and how the trial just started and what the significant data story told, then it's criminal and clearly a blow-off of the mangement and name. If I recall, his target is well below the current price so if he didn't change it, he is on a sell and believes you will lose money over the next 12-18 months.
This explains two things -- why we keep seeing NBF participating heaviliy in trading as their clients jettison it since their analyst thinks it's wildly overvalued and likely telling clients to sell if they ask; and, two, Leno is an incompetent nincomepoop, and not just because he doesnt' agree with me, but because he doesn't even know the key issues that will drive the share price. If Paul had any sense, he'd completely shut off any relationship with these Knights of Nee idiots.
We also now have out list of which Board members to boot off:
The two with NBF ties -- Paul Pommier and Gary Littlejohn. If either is up for election, time to send our message! They will not be getting my votes.
SPCEO1 wrote: I am not sure you could really call it a report, however. Not much effort was expended in producing it - I am guessing he may have dedicated 30 minutes to this. It is more evidence of bad blood between the company and Bay Street. The analyst, however, did not reduce his target price, however. Which I was surprised about given the revenue shortfall.
Like all of us, the NBF analyst is perturbed by the jumpy quarterly sales trends. I think that can partly be blamed on attempts to manage quarterly sales, as noted earlier, by stuffing the distribution channel in one quarter and hoping sales pick up enough in the following quarter to cover your tracks. But that pick-up never happens and sales look lumpier than they probably actually are on the ground.