I suppose I'll be the lone dissident voice around here.
Perhaps the problem in perception/reality for many of us, including myself, is that our academic training makes us believe that markets will operate in a similar rational fashion to bench science. We are also fully ensconced in the 'science-envy' of the culture and cannot fathom the idea that non-science savvy investors would 'perceive' biotech stories in a not-so-different light than dot.com stories.
In the cozy little world of SI we may decide upon certain immutable 'truths' about biotech investing. But the chasm between these 'truths' and the investors who will eventually drive the share prices of biotechs is enormous. And we need only look at the last 6 months: generate the charts of, say, 200 biotech companies, and superimpose them. My guess is that 90% will fall right on top of each other. Lot's of rational analysis going on there, eh?
And if we don't think this will repeat itself, our heads our buried even deeper in the sand than is initially apparent. It doesn't matter what WE think, it's what the other 99% of the (non-science-savvy) world thinks. And you best believe that without a compelling 'story' (like genomics), the group, as a whole will languish.
No, I see the parallels between the dotcomers and biotech as striking and compelling. This applies to the 'perception/reality' level (whatever that is) and to the earnings legitimacy level as well.
Now please ignore this post and move on. |
