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 : Munch-a-Biotech Today -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (776)	12/28/1999 7:12:00 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3158

Yes, I think there are just as many. While I do not understand their decision making process, they would not understand mine so we are even. When a company can commit to a break up fee of $2 billion, it probably does not care if it pays 3 or 4 times more for a company that once would have cost it $200 or $300 million. The purchase is justified on other grounds. When the buying finally begins only the most scientific methodology will be used to determine purchases. Realize you have heard of PERT and Critical Path but bet you not that aware of KUWTJ. Yes, I am sure KUWTJ will be a deciding factor during the year 2000, both in determining which company is purchased and what is paid.

To: LLCF who wrote (776)	12/28/1999 7:35:00 PM
From: tommysdad	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3158

<<how many companies could have been had for todays price divided by 2, 3, or even 4 just 6 months ago. >> Most biotechs have "shareholder rights" plans in place. Realistically, they have to want to be bought. AGPH, SIBI, SUGN, CNTO, all went looking for a buyout, "big brother" didn't go looking for them. So, I think the answer to your question is: not many. They weren't for sale. Who is for sale? Look for companies with lots of clinical plans but not too much money. That takes NBIX, for example, out of the "munch" picture, because they're flush with cash. Same with SNAP, from another point of view --- decent cash and no big clinical trial drain on cash. TD