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 : Neotherapuetics possibly has a breakthrough drug - NEOT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerald Underwood who wrote (26)	8/18/1999 5:33:00 PM
From: john jansen	Respond to of 204

Do they have the $ to finish US and other test? When they started non us test in Jan they said big $ saving over USA testing. Was there PR on the US test? How much will it cost? Was the extra $40 million they did not just fun money??

To: Gerald Underwood who wrote (26)	8/18/1999 6:47:00 PM
From: Marty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 204

Gerry, saying that the stock is just about at its 250 moving average line is just a nicer way of saying that it hasn't gone up in a year, even though it is a better stock now. Maybe if I had been smart enough to step aside when you did and not absorbed such a beating as I have in the last six weeks I would be nice too. I have taken enough losses over the years to get pretty good at putting the best face on things but in this case, I just can't do it. It is not a temporary blip. If it were temporary, we'd be back at 15 by now. If it were a blip, those of us who held on and even bought more stock before the secondary wouldn't have lost a THIRD of our investment. I don't know how far the $10 million will get them in the testing process but certainly not all the way. The cost of going ahead with that secondary, in terms of the shadow it cast over future secondaries, will be enormous. What makes you think the same thing won't happen again? Have you seen any changes? I, for one, doubt that it helped them negotiate better terms with a pharma. Only a fully tested drug with even less risk for the pharma will help them there AND without the ability to get the financing to complete the testing, the advantage shifts to the pharma. This has NOT been "not so bad" or "temporary" or "good for the long term." A good secondary, without the long term holders getting screwed so badly, with good PR and good road shows and a sold out full secondary .... THAT would have been good.