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 : CTEC: Cholestech any other investors? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (681)	8/18/1999 1:08:00 AM
From: Duane L. Olson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 710

Well said, Karen... Actually, could you put me down as a skeptical optimist? <G>.. The company has a lot to prove to me before I'll refrain from keeping a nervous finger on the "Dump!" button... However, I am of the opinion that the CTEC of today is a better company than the one that was selling for 17 last year. That seems to warrant a little investigation of the possible risk/reward ratio while we are still under 5, imho. The good news on the latest earnings report, and the apparently positive potential from the association with Fisher...well, I DO want to have a oar dipped into that water...the rewards for the investors at about 2 earlier this year were pretty decent thus far -- about 150%, if my calculator is still functioning. If we get any followthrough on one more quarter, would that make KHOLT a less skeptical pessimist? <G> tso

To: Lane3 who wrote (681)	8/18/1999 11:57:00 AM
From: mike boyajian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 710

The problem is that CTEC needs a big brother like Parke-Davis to underwrite this whole new business model (at least for the pharmacists). Normal every day "Joes and Janes" are not going to pay to have their lipids checked. So either a big brother like Parke-Davis will have to hold their hands (customers, pharmacists, CTEC) or they have to solve the third party payer situation (insurance companies). The preferable solution at least in my mind is to have Parke-Davis step in and run the show with their deep pockets. Project IMPACT results (due out February 2000) will illustrate that Parke-Davis is losing $Millions in Lipitor revenue because some 60% of patients stop taking the medication after one year. In order to get patients to do the testing it must be offered free or at a very low price (cost absorbed by Parke-Davis). Mike