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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (963)	4/17/2000 8:25:00 PM
From: Harold Engstrom	Respond to of 52153

Peter, nice extract from TSC. That pretty much sums it up. I can't understand momentum buying or selling, but can of course recognize it. In the past, I've been able to take advantage of it when a company like Sepracor has gone on saled due to its effects. Or Biogen in 1997. If everyone has their finger on the hair trigger to sell, that is a sad commentary on their belief that they have created a company that either has value or is a strong value-creating machine. So what is on sale today that will likely appreciate significantly in 2-5 years? I think Sepracor is looking good again (due to decline and FTC ruling combo); PCYC looks good due to promising pipeline and good financing (pipe at ~$75); BTRN looks good - pipeline, SCS investment, and solid balance sheet (another pipe at higher valuations). I also took a chance on BLSI - $90MM market cap and an NDA for $75MM indication (early stage PD) and $500MM indication (ADD) looming.

To: Biomaven who wrote (963)	4/17/2000 9:09:00 PM
From: biowa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Peter, Anything Kramer says, I tend to do the opposite. <g> But let's deconstruct what he says here (not that he knows biotech from the inside of a closet): selling what is ever left of the funny-money names. We have to do it because someone else will do it first. I really hope he's not talking biotech, because - with the possible exception of the genomics companies - they are anything but funny money. Biotechs are developing everything from me-too pharmaceutics to the absolute cutting edge therapies; these are real assets with fantastic growth potential. Biotechs are not website eyeball pyramid schemes; has anyone seen biotechs throwing away money on Super Bowl ads? (Well, with the possible exception of RZYM). We want to be in stocks that get cheaper as they get lower -- older stocks -- not more expensive (because the newer stocks are ruled by chartists who like stocks less as they go down.). This cracks me up. Take note CEO's: next shareholders' meeting, inform them that you've driven the stockprice down because unlike "those new stocks" you know they like yours better as it goes down. But back to biotech. Since when are most biotechs "new" stocks? Does Kramer's criteria require "old" stocks to have been generated by the break-up of Standard Oil? We don't want to be in stocks where the shareholder base is your enemy. We want to be in stocks that have been hit hard already, that are seasoned where the owners are not thinking about getting out. Funny, with most of the mo-mo money gone or leaving, I'd say this describes biotech pretty well. How hard do you want us to be hit? Just make sure you don't drown if we hit the -30% figure. I like the way you think much better than the way Kramer does. <g> BTW, if biotech is up 30% in the next month, he'll be telling us why its such a great "old" sector. biowa