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: scaram(o)uche who wrote (788)	12/29/1999 3:33:00 PM
From: biowa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3158

Rick, Not a dumb question, but their answers may be dumb: 0) Due for a correction. 1) Window-dressing driving many of the already hot stocks right now; this goes away end of this week. 2) Brief relief rally post Y2K, when we're all still here and there were no major commercial catastrophes. 3) Fed raises rates at Jan meeting. biowa

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (788)	12/30/1999 12:08:00 PM
From: aknahow	Respond to of 3158

Perhaps they are just dumb? Guess which closed end "health" fund filed this statement. "Recently, many of the drug stocks have rallied following the announcement of a planned merger between Warner-Lambert and American Home Products--which was quickly followed by a rival offer for American Home Products by Pfizer. While we own large positions in both Warner-Lambert and Pfizer, we expect such merger news to remain only a sidelight to the research and development that will ultimately drive performance in the industry." Most of us will spot the error. Admit I make plenty of mistakes but I am not paid for mine. Who wrote this, and how many lawyers reviewed it is anyones guess. But it appears many at the fund not alert enough to know who Pfizer bid for and more concerned about making a point with a platitude about research and development. Still concerned that there is little outrage over a $2 billion break up fee. Why would $200 million not have been more than sufficient?