RE: Reason For Dip I found this brief conversation/comments interesting, I only managed to go through 4 pages of the 13 so there's probably more valid points out there:
Commenter:
"I have a question Adam- you complain about the veracity of JR's claims where he says "practically a done deal" yet last week you wrote an article with the title "5 reasons why Chelsea Therapeutics's Northera will get FDA approval". So why is it wrong that he used the word "practically" but you were allowed to use the word "will", you didn't use the word should or could you used the word "will" (aka guaranteed). Furthermore I don't understand your 5% argument, neither 1.2 million nor 800k are even close to 5% of either kerx, or aezs. As for RCM being the closest to owning that amount of shares- correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Institution holdings or large investor holdings reported at the end of each quarter- therefore the last time that was updated was on December 31st 2011. So how do you know for a fact whether these shares are held or not? Yet you're article indicates that you are positive he is lying and you prove this by using 2 month's old information. Bottom line is he wrote his opinion on a drug, just as you have written your opinion on other drugs as well. The only difference is you used the word "WILL" for your pumping where he used the word "PRACTICALLY" for his- so who is worst?"
AF's response:
"i didn't question use of the word "practically."
I'm sorry for responding to a question with a question, but how likely do you think it is that a retail investor could be the 2nd or 3rd largest shareholder of a company like AEZS? I say highly unlikely, which is why I raised the question about the stock ownership claims made in JR's article.
You're correct that institutional ownership is usually updated once per quarter but that shouldn't make a difference -- and i don't think it does in this case."
Commenter's response:
"About as likely as it is for a retail investor to own so many shares of VICL. Last time I checked Mr. Singer still owned 10 million shares. Which is ten times more shares than you're questioning the likelihood of- not to mention there's 72 million outstanding shares of VICL and 103 million outstanding shares of AEZS. "
And then nothing. So he basically acknowledges that he has no proof and his only reason is that he finds it unlikely that someone would own a lot of shares of AEZS and when shown proof that there are retail investors out there that do own large stakes in small cap biotech companies he clams up. I'm aware that JR's article was a pure pump, but this Adam guy isn't even acknowledging what he's doing. He's just as bad if not worst.