< If you watch the two of them at a meeting, McCamant is working harder, apparently taking less as given, and trying to fill every minute with potential productivity.>
Interesting... sounds like a more effective person in general. I have issues with both of their "business plans" if you will. First, both seem to feel the need to discuss "the market" in general to kick off their newsletters. This is ineffective use of resources IMO, who needs another "guru" explaining why the Dow went somewhere. Next, Murphy has way too much on his plate... recommending everything from biotech to bandwidth plays. Common, hire some people and create 10 newsletters, or drop some of this stuff... not that it's not worth following, or interesting, but lets face it, if you know anything about any of the subjects covered you realize he's taking huge leaps of faith based on concepts [IMO]. Hell, the more I learn about bio's from you guys the more I realize even Mcamant probably has too much on his plate. Neuroinvest makes more sense IMO from a business plan standpoint.
What caught my attention about Murphy was his(?) concept of R&D not being "expenses", coming from a financial background this has great appeal to me, and certainly R&D expenditures are an important input... although he seems to take it to the extreme. For instance IMO this number (R&D exp per shr) means different things depending apon the certainty your project. INTC spending more $ to improve yields by going to thinner litography patterns on the next generation of chip (a conceptually proven low risk strategy to continue outspending the competition) is worlds apart from the same $'s being spent on a new unproven technology. Anyway, enough of that, thanks for the input.
DAK |
