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 : Gliatech (GLIA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Torben Noerup Nielsen who wrote (1283)	2/4/2000 12:19:00 AM
From: bluejeans	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2001

Stephens is a privately owned investment firm. We had to stop doing business with them several years ago.

To: Torben Noerup Nielsen who wrote (1283)	2/4/2000 1:01:00 AM
From: John Metcalf	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2001

"I'm a firm believer in the old maxim about not ascribing to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." Good maxim, Torben, if you will add that pursuit of dollars might tempt one to act maliciously or stupidly. Stephens' report discloses that the company makes a market for Gliatech shares. As a market-maker, they are daily correspondents with those who have sold short about a third of the float. So, if they rely on those sellers to identify doctors to poll, is that malicious? Or stupid? Or greedy? Or all of the above? Could there be a credible reason to concentrate their analysis on just one potential issue (dural leaks) that has occurred very rarely (54 per 100,000 surgeries, by Stephens' estimate) in just one product? (T/N is also an approved product, outside the US.) How is it that this non-issue has become more important than ADCONs I, P, C, and A? How did this come to dominate their view of the company to the exclusion of the Alzheimers, inflammation, ADD, insomnia, and narcolepsy programs?