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: jeffbas who wrote (1388)	2/27/2000 4:49:00 PM
From: Jack Hartmann	Respond to of 2001

OT: Was the Bob Wilson story ever published? I don't remember that one. Jack

To: jeffbas who wrote (1388)	2/27/2000 5:16:00 PM
From: Torben Noerup Nielsen	Respond to of 2001

Jeffrey, As pointed out by several surgeons, tearing the dura is not all that easy. It's evolved to be tough for good reason and I'm convinced that dural tears are primarily caused by incompetent surgeons. And ADCON use is not indicated in cases where there are dural tears. Patient lawsuits are a matter of course. Yes, I'm biased, but I find it hard to imagine a medical supplies company that doesn't have at least one patient lawsuit pending at any given time. That's part of the cost of doing business. Moreover, I believe such suits are usually settled if there's any merit at all. And given the increased FDA scrutiny, is it really likely that there's a big smoking gun here? Finally, there's ADCON-A and the biotechnology side of the company which still isn't priced in at all. I think I'm going to start daytrading this one for a fraction of a point here and there. As far as I can tell, it appears to be basing. Thanks, Torben

To: jeffbas who wrote (1388)	2/27/2000 8:29:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2001

jeffrey, In my opinion, the only rational explanation for the large increase in short interest in the last month AFTER the FDA problem was resolved is conviction that there is a potentially serious problem. Here I beg to differ with you. Although in general shorts are more sophisticated than longs, I have to say that in biotechland over the past year or two the shorts have generally been wildly wrong. There have been a few noticeable exceptions, with some good calls by Avalon on FDA approval issues, but even these have recently been balanced with some equivalent offsetting flubs by Avalon. I've seen a couple of "short this pig" analyses on various biotechs by fairly sophisticated outfits like Sturza. While superficially convincing, when you examine the details of their analyses you find gaping holes, tendentious statements and general misinformation. It is easy for a boutique biotech outfit (like Avalon or Sturza) to convince the average non-biotech hedge fund that a particular biotech is overpriced. I could write an analysis of pretty much any biotech you name that would start most would-be shorts salivating. Thus at this point I no longer view a high short position in a biotech as a particular warning sign. It does mean that there is likely to be increased rumor-mongering and misinformation, but you need to ignore this and stick with your own analysis. In general over the last two years I have done very well indeed taking positions in respectable but heavily-shorted biotechs during their dips. Peter