Good stuff. A high quality scientist who I greatly respect as a scientist and as a human being, but who I think might possibly be only average at stock valuations (and
quite possibly below average at that skill) ... seems to currently not agree with the analysts whose full-time job is to figure out stock valuations. I wonder whether I should trust all the time and effort I've spent figuring out the valuation based on lots of years of training and experience at this ... which largely concurs with the consensus. Or go with the opinion of the scientist? Red, I hope you can accept a little good-natured ribbing. I really do respect you.
I have tons of things that I'm only average at and also that I'm below average at. And I'm not saying you're definitely average or below average at that, though my perception from the last year is that there's a good chance of it. It doesn't affect your standing as a person in any way, shape or form.
Related to your note last night about "prove it" that Novavax and its high quality partners around the world can manufacture, the fact is that once they've definitively proved it, there will probably be only a mild discrepancy between the share price and what its valuation ought to be; and people who sat on their hands waiting for me or for Novavax to prove it, will have likely lost out on a great gain. I'm not saying it's guaranteed - of course nothing is. Just probabilities. Even if they have many production delays in the coming months, it's likely still a strong buy at this price.
When I wrote the first article I did on NVCR, most investors were in the prove it mindset, which resulted in it being way undervalued because they weren't buying. By the time there was clarity and NVCR proved it, the buying opportunity was gone and people missed out on a lot of a 1,700% gain. I'm not saying NVAX will go close to that high, but the analogy is accurate: