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 : Trickle Portfolio -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (212)	12/11/2000 11:51:36 PM
From: tuck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1784

PB, For better or worse, I'm the Pope on this thread. If Rick wants to ex-communicate someone on other threads that's his biz. I will consider sources and stocks (such as those with involvement by Paramount) that he won't. I don't quite understand the aversion to having a drug discovery for hire category in trickle. I was planning on adding such a category to the taxonomy. Problem is it blurs with some other categories. INCY is a "genomics" company in popular parlance. To me it seems a hybrid of drug discovery for hire and bioinformatics. As is PCOP. I haven't bought any aside form those two in part because of valuations, and in part because it's a hazy area of trickle. I don't plan on emphasizing the category. However, I am looking at bodyshops of chemists for hire, as that aspect of the drug discovery category isn't filled. A couple of companies are on the watch list. Would y'all like to expand on this facet of trickle taxonomy? Or was the aversion simply the fact of rampant overvaluation in the segment in the eyes of trickle fans? Cheers, Tuck

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (212)	12/12/2000 12:07:52 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 1784

Chuckle. No, I thought the article was great. Agree fully, but almost chucked when I saw MLNM listed. While the concept was sound, it must have been someone else's (or lucky). [must get in dig, as Fool is forever on sht lst]

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (212)	12/12/2000 12:33:58 AM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Respond to of 1784

PB, <<Putting MLNM and HGSI in the list is kind of silly at this stage.>> IDPH, MLNM, HGSI and ABGX represent new wave or future of the biotech sector. However, selection of the four mAb-comps is bit out of my taste. Miljenko

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (212)	12/12/2000 3:27:13 PM
From: tuck	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1784

Thanks, PB, Just looked at the article. TomFoolery, but he's in the ball park and has the right idea. Beginning to reconsider the drug discovery trickle category; if the pie is that small and that many blackbirds are eating. It's good to see some figures thrown about concerning market size. He leaves out the middle and small cap biotech universe, so we know the figure is higher, as some of those are drug discovery customers, too. In fact, if we take that figure derived from the pharmas' R&D budget, and tack it onto the YTD biotech financing figures we've also seen recently, we should have an approximate idea of the size of the trickle market. I suspect, however, that I want to apply a different -- higher -- per centage for R&D spending by biotechs than that of pharmas. Anybody care to guess what that figure is, roughly? I'd guess 15 - 20% of cash raised is spent on trickle by biotechs. Putting the total trickle market somewhere the $6 billion per annum range at the moment. Talk about irresponsible, not even back-of-the-envelope figures! Comments? Cheers, Tuck