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 : ArQule -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tommysdad who wrote (360)	7/27/1999 9:10:00 PM
From: Herc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 399

Other than ARQL, which of the following do you like the best? ABSC BCRX CCHM PCOP TRGA

To: tommysdad who wrote (360)	7/27/1999 10:06:00 PM
From: John Dwyer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 399

I have no idea why you guys are jumping all over Herc. A little fresh blood on these threads is refreshing. Geez, cmon folks. Yes, the companies are different but I don't subscribe to the SEPR hype. they have a lot of potential but revenues from Xoponex are weak and the patent issues are not dead IMO. ARQL's molecules have no a priori patent problems. Herc's point (I think) is that with all of these potential drugs (compound libraries), one might think that there could be a goldmine waiting to be found. In that respect, I agree. IMO, ARQL needs to better adjust to the rapidly changing biotech marketplace... one reason I like PCOP so much is that they have in-house R&D programs and a UHTS program. So they are not relying solely on combichem to deliver revenues. ARQL has not shown such diversification and has not executed on it's promise to have drugs in the clinic. I'd say the biggest difference between SEPR and ARQL is how each company executed their strategy. John