Cool, thanks. After the high-profile failures for neuro, the bargains on the table are incredible. You get these wagging lips on CNBC, who had the foresight to invest their clients' money in the LIPOs of the world, saying that one shouldn't go near the water because some of their relatives drowned.
We have an amazing opportunity to pick up quality research for nickels on the dollar, and we have individuals with the foresight of a Michael Yellen (GT Global Healthcare Fund) to thank. That's sarcasm, BTW.
I'm fed up with the irresponsible reporting on CNBC regarding biotech. This week, with the generalization by Insana and others that ENMD and BLSI equates to biotech as a whole, was intolerable. To paraphrase...... "you have some who go for growth and value, and you have some who go for growth at any price if you look at the recent biotech craze". What biotech craze, Ron?? Do you mean the EntreMed craze? If so, please say such! While you're at it, get some REAL biotech experts as guests, not clowns that manage underperforming funds or wagging lips from some unknown bank.
Or "first the internet craze, and now the biotech stocks". Would it be accurate (shudder) to say..... "first the internet stocks, and now EntreMed"?
The casual, off-the-cuff and inaccurate comments at CNBC regarding biotech are infuriating, and they go on and on. Insana is particularly guilty and increasingly casual. Yes, investors have lost a lot of money in biotech. Informed investors have *made* a lot. It's frustrating as heck that those who have failed to provide performance in the past are those that are asked for current opinions.
The wagging lips are all saying, this week, not to buy early-stage companies. They say that for two reasons..... (1) they didn't have the brains or insightful research in the past to avoid the LIPOs of the world, and (2) it *sounds* correct. Nobody at CNBC ever bothers to ask the correct frigging questions...... (1) what expertise do you have to judge the companies, and (2) why shouldn't one buy $20 of quality research for $5 if it's available? They just sit there and watch the lips flap, and figure, Insana in particular, that they've done their job.
Burn. Sizzle. Vent.
Squawk Box is great...... get the CEO on and ask tough questions. See if he can look into the camera, while he's answering questions, the way Peter Johnson does. The pessimism with respect to biotech is just as pronounced during Squawk Box, but potential is dealt with on a company-by-company basis and the off-the-cuff comments most often come with disclaimers that make them fair. Hats off to the SB crew, but.... the guests this week were particularly good examples of the best and worst that biotech has to offer. Someone needs to weed out the "worst", so that the sector can move beyond its tarnished reputation. After all, the bottom line...... there are many damn good scientists out there that are motivated by (and working for) cures!
So..... the high-profile failures in neuro have really hit the subsector, in a sector that's underperformed in its own right. I say that we're getting $20 of quality research for $5, and can't imagine why a biotech portfolio shouldn't include NRGN. Feel the same way about SIBI, but it's so damn low-volume that you can't buy more than three shares without the price bopping around.
Have a good weekend!
BTK 183.37 +7.27 183.37 176.010 +4.1%
Rick |
