Comment to Jason Napodano and John Tucker on their "Analysis" of Arena

My retort to Arena bashers--er...analysts Jason Napodano and John Tucker:

I noticed you deleted my comments on how WRONG you and Jason were on Lorcaserin's FDA approval.

There is no straw man.  You said EMA was more impactful and bigger than FDA approval.  Which tells me your expertise lies elsewhere.  You said yourself you don't take into account drugs in phase I trials.  You also dismiss ARNA having multiple marketing partners for the Americas and ROW.  Yet, you pass judgment on ARNA.  So yeah, it's suspicious, because either you have huge blind spots or you are earning a second income.  And you keep harping on Belviq's efficacy, or lack thereof.  Your short thesis will get smoked again.  You guys act like SA is the only outlet, so go ahead and delete away.  The truth will leak out until it becomes Niagara Falls.

Before you do delete this message, please address where you were wrong on Lorcaserin getting approved.  It was approved, and so far, its commercial launch is three times better than Qsymia's launch.  Your track record on ARNA hasn't exactly been spotless.

Arena Pharmaceuticals bashers

Jason Napodano just issued a negative report on Arena Pharmaceuticals, despite revenue and earnings coming in above analyst expectations.  Napodano works for Zacks Investment Research.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1606842-arena-pharmaceuticals-current-prescription-rates-arent-the-real-issue?source=email_rt_mc_related_0

Yet, Zacks, who is Napodano's employer, upgrades Arena Pharmaceuticals to "Outperform."

http://utahpeoplespost.com/2013/08/arena-pharmaceuticals-upgraded-to-outperform-at-zacks-arna/

So what is going on here?  Why is there a disconnect?  Is this just an example of "unbiased, impartial" financial research?

This is speculation on my part, but this is could be an example of a captured analyst.  Sell-side analysts like Napodano issue "hit" pieces to cap the share price of targeted companies like Arena.  In doing so, it allows the shorts--some of them naked--to cover their short positions at lower prices.  It also allows longs to buy at lower prices.

In essence, "analysts" like Napodano and Adam Feuerstein of thestreet.com are paid bashers for big-money hedge funds.  They aren't working in the best interests of retail investors, because small-time investors don't butter the analysts' bread.

They purposefully dispense misinformation so the big money can clean up on outsized profits while the little guys get their clocks cleaned.  The objective of the hit pieces is to scare retail investors into selling their positions, driving the share price down further, so the hedgies can scoop up shares at discounted prices.  Shares flow from weak hands into strong hands.  Wash, rinse, repeat.

It's just another reason to ignore the "professional analysts".  Besides, Feuerstein majored in political science while in college.  Yet, thousands of his followers seek his advice on biotech stocks.  Good luck to the suckers.  Don't follow them over the cliff.