ahhaha:
I may have stopped posting, but the percentage of my portfolio in ARQL has never been greater.
I agree, largely, with your monkey rationale. However, combichem need not be an isolated procedure. As it evolves to an art that is guided by DNA sequence (the direction that ARQL/Curagen and others are pointing at), I want to own the companies that are ahead on the learning curve. Until then, a combo of labor-intensive (monkey) chemistry and SBD at ARQL is generating leads.
Your comments are appreciated. No question in my mind, SBD is a proven technology that is worthy of a timely investment. IMO, however, the next level of sophistication is no more than five years away, and the "directed array" concept puts ARQL way up on learning curve. There are two questions.... (1) to what degree, if any, will they participate in the pharma market, year 2005 and beyond, and (2) how will they bridge the revenue gap in the next few years? You're correct... current state of the art is SBD-directed chemistry. Fortunately, ARQL is good at this game and there are lots of companies out there with biological targets that aren't. The business plan is risky but alive. Some biotech investors like to construct a portfolio of potential 10-baggers, and bail from companies that don't stay on track. It works. I've proven that.
Cheers! Rick |
