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: Scott H. Davis who wrote (2420)	12/29/2000 4:56:25 PM
From: dalroi	Respond to of 52153

Scott one could try incy/glgc would be intrested in such a thread why dont you set one up ? Seems to be a good initiative cheers Stefaan

To: Scott H. Davis who wrote (2420)	12/29/2000 5:03:54 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Q. On this chart, how much money did IDPH have, 1/95? quote.yahoo.com A. None. Q. On this chart, how much money did IMGN have, 12/97? quote.yahoo.com A. None, or next to it. Despite the nonsense dogma that was spewed by the underwriters (and their folly followers), 3/2000, returns are traditionally best in big-science companies that are almost broke. The "how to invest in biotech" lists are most often trumpeted by those who would take your money. Their PAs are loaded with cash-strapped small caps. Biotech is a sector, like none other, where leverage can be your friend. If you go looking for cash-rich companies, you will rob yourself of many (most, IMO) big ops. Even in the "depth of despair" years..... the 1997 success story..... AGPH had to dip way down to $30 or so for a dilutive offering. Hurt like hell. For just awhile. :-)

To: Scott H. Davis who wrote (2420)	12/29/2000 8:11:12 PM
From: tommysdad	Respond to of 52153

Scott, I actually think this would be a worthwhile idea to pursue. My personal bias is that a "cash-heavy" biotech portfolio would out-perform the universe of "cash-neutral" and "cash-poor" biotechs (which of course includes the TRGA's of the world -- oops, I mean included), but underperform the AMEX biotech index and underperform by a wide margin a well-chosen selection of well-run, scientifically sound companies (selected without regard to how much money they have in the bank, with the caveat that less than 6 months of cash and no products on the horizon is a big warning sign). Why? Any Scripps professor with a brain-fart could raise $50 million last year, and it seemed (to me) that Wall Street wasn't too particular about which public companies they rewarded with big secondaries, etc. last year. I don't think a war chest is a good indicator of long-term potential. Short-term maybe. But I'm willing to be proven wrong, which a thread which tests your idea could possibly do.