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: Michael Young who wrote (3391)	4/10/2001 9:51:34 PM
From: John Metcalf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Michael, think about what this Cramerism means: "Biotech, hey, you know I am a skeptic. I have railed against it, called it a bubble, thought it was way overvalued. But the sector has come down to where their might be values. Won't you join me in finding out?" Geeze. Cramer was writing nonsense about how you just gotta take CSCO and DELL when MLNM, HGSI, SEPR, et al were doing ten-baggers, and his Big Tech Stocks were falling off a cliff. BTW, you could have had at least a year's notice on the Big Tech Stock Fall, by reading Bill Fleckenstein's column (used to be free on SI), instead of paying for TSCM. Now, Fleckenstein is subscription-only at Grant's Investor, and Cramer is giving more away every day. Funny, isn't it, how the world works. During the time that Cramer was railing against biotech, most of us here on SI were making fortunes, not just beating hedge funds by losing less money than they. Now, he wants us to join him in determining the worth of biotech companies, and to pay him for the privilege! What extreme hubris, from a commentator who did no research, who missed so many big opportunities, and who mis-advised his readers. I wouldn't go to Cramer's seminar on biotech any more than I would go to Michael Jackson's seminar on childcare. It's not just a waste of time and money, it's offensive pretense. If you want to learn about biotech, read SI. Cramer still has value as a frequent contrary indicator with some influence. As has been observed, when his sheep follow him, you can make money going the other way. It also improves one's self-image to have some distance from Cramer. The air just seems fresher!

To: Michael Young who wrote (3391)	4/10/2001 9:54:01 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 52153

In biotech, you'd need to have been blindfolded and have had bad luck to do only 30% in year 2000. I'm not impressed. Please talk about year 1999. Please expand, since you're implying that I'm blatantly wrong. How could anyone have screwed up a year like he screwed up 1999? Do you believe that he made 10%, 1999 and 2000, of what my public portfolios did? His combined years 1999 and 2000 stink. And regardless of what you may think about my being blatantly wrong, you simply can't contest that statement on firm ground. >> And Herb Greenberg's stuff has saved me some money. He is wired into some of the better shorts round. << I agree, and add....... BFD. >> Pretty amazing in my book considering the market. << You're satisfied with your performance and information sources. I'm happy for you.