Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : T/FIF Portfolio -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Metcalf who wrote (972)	6/18/1999 2:22:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1073

>> I also meant to ask, humbly, because I'm not an expert fund manager, that if you could double in first tier, and make 80% in 2nd-3rd tier, how do you lose 8%? << You do really bright things like short AGPH just as it's poised to romp? I can't answer your question. I've asked it before..... how could anyone possibly have performed this poorly by accident? This is the guy who goes before various forums and blames the sector for his performance, the guy who manages biotech's only pure play in a mutual fund. Then we have to endure his having been selected by CNBC - and others - as an expert commentator. As anyone who follows my posts at SI will understand, I'm ticked - and have been - for some time. As anyone who follows my posts at SI will perhaps finally understand, I'm ticked with very good reason. I hope that contributors and lurkers can appreciate.... the sector has a bad rep because pure jerks, most with vested interests, have been handing out the advice, not because there haven't been dedicated scientists effectively putting in the hours. The pipes are full. The 10-baggers are waiting. The good companies have been screwed. The underwriters didn't exclude the garbage in the process of due diligence. They don't want a "no go, the science stinks" review; they want IPOs and follow-ons. They want the appearance that deals have been sufficiently reviewed, but they don't want critical analysis. The attorneys, the VCs, the investment bankers, the analysts, and the scam artists..... many want to make money the easy way rather than to carry science through to the clinic. There are many good companies out there that are managed by shrewd businessmen and yet which still have an eye on the patient. They want to make money off of products as well as options. And then there are the crooks who sneak in through reverse mergers. I hope that there's enough evidence scattered around SI such that this is clear..... if one were not ethical and had access to OPM, one could easily set up a situation where friends and relatives were doing four figures, annualized percent return. Anybody want their friends and relatives to make 1000% or better per year? All you'd need to do is let me manage your [large quantity of] money. Your relatives would do great. You wouldn't. The juxtaposition of thoughts in this post is coincidental. I have spoken with von Emster, and he seems to be a nice guy. I do not believe that there has been ANY intent behind his remarkably poor performance.

To: John Metcalf who wrote (972)	6/18/1999 6:26:00 AM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 1073

<how do you lose 8%? > You "create" the lows with your sales [seriously... someone did, right? I think it's obvious who]... then piss around unsure of what your doing and buy some back, just to sell the next dip. Then by the time you're feeling a little better about your new direction in life as a savy in and out trader by watching the "big guys" rally for 5 months [with partial positions] you "power" into them right at the freakin top! DAK

To: John Metcalf who wrote (972)	6/18/1999 12:20:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1073

One more time, and sorry if this bothers anyone; regarding <<I also meant to ask, humbly, because I'm not an expert fund manager, that if you could double in first tier, and make 80% in 2nd-3rd tier, how do you lose 8%? >> The answer is simply "you (he) did not." Starting from roughly the same date, say August 31 of 98 or so, von Emster's NAV is up about 30%; underperformance for sure, but not negative. The negative 8% is from the beginning of 1999; since then BTK is up 12% or so; "bounce" is probably up even more; VD is down 5% or so. Now, if it's more fun to display the 2X, +80, -8 numbers just for the heck of it, without concern for periods, fine with me and I'll shut up. As I said before, it's not my intention to derail this deserved and entertaining bashing of Kurt von -g- PB