There are some crappy companies that are being discussed and/or mentioned in this thread.
Praise is being heaped on some of them by long-term, sincere contributors to SI-biotech.
Some are just plain pieces of garbage. The praise here originates from either (1) new contributors who are sincere but naive, or (2) living spam bots.
I've learned my lessons about bad-mouthing high-profile companies, and do it very selectively now. However, if you're one of the hard core, sincere contributors to SI-biotech and yet find yourself sitting in stagnant stocks, ask yourself this question...... how many scientists contribute to the threads which interest you most?
We have a collection of chemists, biochemists, molecular biologists, molecular modelers, immunologists, neurologists, etc. who contribute here. We often get pointed to great stocks by the *non*-scientists; this has truly been a model of public (and often selfless) collaboration and team work.
However, if there's an old time biotech that doesn't attract the attention of our scientist investors, perhaps you should consider it a red flag? Perhaps it means that you've invested in a company that has little leverage, that the company may face technical hurdles and handcuffs?
If you're reading this thread, and you see two *sincere* contributors talking enthusiastically about the same stock? Consider that they're well-meaning but naive biotech investors? Look at the specific thread for that company........ if there aren't scientists contributing, ask "why?". It may merely be oversight. OTOH, it may represent informed caution.
"We" (collective, sorry) have a remarkable track record -- documented, supported by public portfolios -- of avoiding (relative basis, not absolute) stocks that implode or go stagnant. That's half the game.
Another thing...... some of you hold too many companies. Diversification is good, but enough is enough. Last Winter, it was a blessing, as one could wander from "pop" to "pop". However, when the sector is contracting, it's important, IMO, to focus on the most leveraged of companies.
One method of biotech investing has ALWAYS proven to be effective...... construct a basket of 8-12 leveraged, development-stage companies, with downside protection that is provided by a combination of interesting science and a reasonable capitalization:book. That basket will thrive, even during a period of protracted sector contraction.
That method flies in the face of what Street experts will list as rules for investing in the sector. I'm not saying that it's *the* most effective method. I'm just saying that it is -- and will be -- effective.
Why am I posting this note? It's painful to see sincere contributors who are stuck in loser stocks. In 1996, I sold LGND at $17 and told everyone, bluntly, that the future would be great science and dilution, dilution, dilution. As a result, I was stalked and hounded for years. You warn people about a Ligand or an Isis, and you pay a price.
Look at your favorite threads and analyze the contributors.
This is how we want our charts to look..........
quote.yahoo.com
If a stock was selling for $20/share in 1996 and is selling for $20/share now, there's a reason for performance to date. Fundamentals may have changed to the positive side, given time on the learning curve. But, if such is the case, odds are it will have attracted some informed opinion. Just my $0.02.
Cheers! Rick |
