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 : Ionis Pharmaceuticals (IONS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: synchro who wrote (2692)	9/15/1999 5:48:00 AM
From: SemiBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4676

"That's a pretty significant 'tell' from industry insiders, isn't it?" Not to sound ignorant - even if I am :~) - but what do you mean by "a pretty significant 'tell'?" Wouldn't it be logical that biotechs are willing to sell their antisense portfolio because they see little value in it? Or, would they be selling because they realize ISIP's future dominance? Thanks in advance....SemiBull

To: synchro who wrote (2692)	9/15/1999 9:12:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4676

Synchro - these are important factors in trying to determine whether a stock is ready to go up. As one of the earliest investment advisors recommending QUALCOMM (February, 1992), I would note that there are significant differences between QCOM and ISIP. The most important of these differences is that QCOM used its OmniTRACS communication system to generate the necessary cash flow to perfect its CDMA digital cellular phones. ISIP had no comparable source of cash flow and was compelled to make alliances with various drug companies, which is sensible but also dilutes potential earnings. The latest alliance is with Abbott Labs for the manufacture of compound 2302. My reading here is that no such alliance would even be possible without there being a very good chance of imminent approval by the FDA. As for the purchase of other antisense research work, it appears that everyone, ISIP included, has underestimated the tremendous cost of developing new drugs. It's very likely that smaller companies have even more problems than ISIP and are happy to unload their incomplete work at a reasonable price. My conclusion is that at least a couple of the drugs under development will succeed. What I don't know, given the huge costs of developing and testing these drugs, is whether ISIP will ever make a decent profit for its shareholders, or whether everything will be eaten up in salaries and IOU's to the development partners. Anyone else have any ideas? Regards, Art Bechhoefer (long on ISIP)