Hi James, recently I've been comfortable just being patient. I have no idea why CAMH dropped today, I noticed it dipped to 9 7/8 before closing at 11. As you may know, both of these stocks are very closely held so that a small increase in share trading can cause big price movements. Have you noticed that Igen has had some zero shares traded days or 1 or 2 thousand? Today when the ask for Igen dropped to 5 7/8, the volume picked up, apparently supporting the price.|
As far as I know, these are excellent bets. There are solid reasons to believe that these stocks will have there time soon (less than a year). The difficulty I used to have with undiscovered stocks that have great prospects was believing that one could spot them before wallstreet. From participating in company conference calls, I have found that most of the bigwigs don't have a clue what's going on. And I consider myself to be only moderately clued in.
If CAMH only had one good pilot study, then I would wonder. But there are 4-5 that I have looked over that seemed as good or even better than the Dec 1994 study. If you understand how the instrument would impact how persons with cardiac problems, and likely uses, then one can very conservatively guess that this technology will be necessary in the workup. Even though cost is THE driving factor in medicine, a big benefit in appropriate care can still make it. A perfect example is the Pap smear, it has a large benefit, but is not cost effective if you bother to do the numbers yourself. Cost effective is determinig what a life is worth. If it cost a million to save a life, then could that money be spent elsewhere to save 2 lives? To save one life with the pap smear, it costs 1 million (you have to add in the extra procedures that are called for when screening). To further break it down, they use life/years saved.
With CAMH, I can see this test easily justified on cost effectiveness. I forgot the numbers I did in my head, but they were pretty good.
With IGEN, if this instrument saves money like they claim, and if it's better as it seems to be, then it's cost effective.
Why do these stocks just sit there, because they are not being hyped yet by the bigwigs who lead us sheep. Plus they are boring. Plus, biotech is not yet in taking off like I think we believe it will. If we are right about a sector boom, then many of these biotechs will look cheap later. One benefit of these undiscovered stocks is that they are cheaper than they would be otherwise. I guess you can tell I have heard nothing new. I did reread the literature that I have and I found no reason to doubt these companies. When I hear something new, you will see it.