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: Londo who wrote (2434)	1/2/2001 7:39:58 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

side question: How do you find very-old SEC filings? The earliest I could find for IDPH was their 10-K filing for 1996 on freedgar.com. You don't, unless they're in your files. Obviously the higher returns can be made on companies that don't have any cash left that truly have viable technologies to get to market.. but the problem here is one of information dissemination - just by looking at SEC filings and websites, is it possible to pick these companies out of the air? Out of thin air? Read the thread, start to finish, and then show some respect for the forum in which you are participating??? It's what some of us try to do, excepting the "thin air" part. As a professional investor, it's what I do. Yes, it's possible to pick them. Instead of spewing dogma or arguing, why don't you read the thread that you're spewing in, start to finish? but can we agree that the best of both worlds: cash-rich biotech with science/products that will get FDA approval are the safest opportunity for the biggest return? Close. But, if you can't pick the ones with big science that lack cash, what makes you think that you can pick those that will get their projects past an Advisory Committee and other scrutiny? Yes, if your selection process is going to be random -- with the exception of a dogmatic list -- you're correct..... cash-rich companies will be much safer. You're ignoring a public, five year track record of picking winners and [largely but not completely] avoiding losers. Pick the Idecs of the world and avoid the Tregas. I walked out of a breakout session with Trega last year and reported to friends that they only had ChemNavigator and a molecule of relatively low affinity for a project where they were not competitive. So..... poof, there goes your downside example. If a company with 2 million left in the bank and a market cap of 30 mil discovers the cure for AIDS, if their market cap goes to 3 billion, you get a 100x return.. but if that company had 200 million left in the bank, and a 230 million cap, you get a 13x return.. I guess the matter is philosophical on how much of that 'cash cushion' you really need in order to feel that the company can get a marketable product.. Read the thread? Start to finish? Why do you exclude the (a given) company that has hot sht, but wants to finish a level of testing on a shoestring such that they won't need to give away the farm? If your list of biotech investments is one stock long, then you're correct; your strategy is safer. If your list is a diversified basket, then I claim that leveraged big science provides for that safety AND a superior return. You can't pick them? No problem! But please quit throwing dogmatic crap in the face of those that can (and have). Thanks, in advance. (e.g. if CEGE's GVAX cancer vacciene ever gets approved, their 800 million market cap is certainly going to double at least..)* GVAX? GM-CSF was probably the correct selection. GVAX was acquired when CEGE purchased Somatix Therapy. March 1991, Somatix was born from Hana Biologics via a name change. Hana Biologics was first traded as a public corporation in June, 1986. I was sitting across a table from HANA --in Alameda -- at about that time, discussing their science and a potential collaboration. What is the exact nature of "antigen" that will be recognized by patients who receive GVAX?? Cheers! Rick