RE: Amarath & Melloncarmyk
The first thing pointed out in my initial post that you responded to was the March 9, 2005 SEC filing showing that Newton bought more oncy in 2005 and later, I asked if there could be any doubt whether oncy would again be among their top negative contributors for 1st quarter ending mar 31, 2005, especially since oncy’s weighting likely increased with the addition of shares. so your spin that I was suggesting the “loser” should have been dumped in early 2005 has no basis.
The main point was and remains, adding more of a “loser” stock that continues to make your top negative contributors list quarter after quarter when you are already under-performing vs the standard indices for the last 5 years isn’t exactly conservative investing or going to endear you to your shareholders (unless perhaps they are oncy shareholders) if things don’t turn around “soon”.
How long does this under-performing fund manager have to give onc to start performing (or at least matching the nasdaq biotech index)? Perhaps more importantly, how long does the fund manager think s/he has?
At what point do they decide they have no choice but to sell this “loser” if it keeps losing like it has the last 2+ quarters (and being flat for the quarter before that)?
I suggest the more 5 year under-performing stock they add to a 5 year under-performing fund, the greater the pressure to produce results, especially on that 5 year under-performing stock.
How has onc management performed so far under “pressure”?
Dean curtis, Ontario teacher’s pension fund, Pfizer, anyone???
Apparently onc management has been too busy feeding the likes of BIOEYE/confucus/qzr4 & others with “information” to share on message boards to notice any “pressure” to perform.