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: scaram(o)uche who wrote (3109)	3/16/2001 10:37:56 AM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 52153

Rick, I think it just "feels" to us that someone is picking on biotech. My guess is that it is largely driven by fund redemptions, driven in turn by the NASD meltdown. In the last few days the relationship I have talked about previously between the Dow, the NASD, the DRG and the BTK (or NBI) indices has returned with a vengeance, on a minute-by-minute basis. When I compare a graph of the ratio of the NASD to the DOW to a graph of the ratio of the BTK to the DRG, you see an uncanny correlation. Virtually every peak or valley corresponds when you look at them on a short term graph. (Users of QCHARTS can see this for themselves - just plot NASD / DOW and BTK / DRG on the same time scale below each other and use the cross-hairs to compare the times of each of the peaks and valleys). So basically what we continue to see is people moving out of "new economy" stocks and into "old economy" stocks. Partly this is simply a flight to safety, and the high-volatility biotechs are viewed as "unsafe" (or at very least not conservative). Partly it is the funds that hold biotech tend also to hold other aggressive stocks that have been tanking, and so the redemptions spill over into the biotechs. I'm sure you are getting some short-sellers getting into the act as well, but I don't think they are the basic drivers of what is going on. My guess is there are some big computerized program traders in the mix as well. My view is that these movements in biotech stock prices are pretty much unrelated to fundamentals, but unfortunately that doesn't make them any less real. Peter

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (3109)	3/16/2001 11:00:31 AM
From: Jibacoa	Respond to of 52153

MLNM: The stock has remained on a down trend since early November. Except for the mid and late December the stock price has remained below the average lines. If you draw a line through the tops of the price on a daily chart, you can see that the line has not been broken yet: siliconinvestor.com On a shorter term basis, you can see that after yesterday's opening gap to the up-side, the stock could not get past the 30 level. (It should had closed above the March 12 H of 32 to give it some hope of "turn-around" and it started to "weaken" again before the close yesterday, so it was somewhat to be expected that today it would "close the gap".: siliconinvestor.com On a longer perspective view, MLNM looks like it may find "support" at the 20 level.(That is from where the "upward momentum" started to accelerate in late November 1999.: siliconinvestor.com At any rate in this last view, I guess we can see the difference between late 1999 and early 2000 when the price was able to stay above both average lines (as the stock was on a frank up-trend)and the performance this year, when the price has remained below both average lines.(The stock remains on a down-trend) They say Jesse Livermore used to say: "The most comfortable way to buy stocks is on a rising market." I keep a list of some of his "maxims" and try to refresh my memory, reading it from time to time, since when I have failed to follow its advice, it usually has cost me dearly <g> I have to ask Peter for his indulgence on inserting some of these TA comments on this thread, but it is my sincere opinion that it is something you have to factor in while trying to determine "value", since the price of a stock, stamp, coin, diamond, gold,etc., usually depends on what a "buyer" is willing to pay for it Bernard