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: Biomaven who wrote (3434)	4/17/2001 12:10:02 PM
From: keokalani'nui	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Peter I will be very upset if FD gets carved back. I'm sure it is true that there is less information; but it is less illegal information. For the market to be efficient, since efficiency depends on full and well-broadcast disclosure, there have to be gaps in pricing upon announcement of material information, instead of, say, the steady run-up to a merger announcement...or the painful bleeding before clinical results are announced. Bitching about gaps in pricing is like a racing trotter complaining he can't gallop. The most offensive practice to me, hopefully now modulated, was the analyst and the CFO sitting down and "working" out the analysts' spreadsheet models to the point it was identical to the company's, including necessarily the assumptions for cap-ex and other discretionary spending. Even so, I still hear on conference calls a particularly baffled analyst offered time with the CFO "off line". (Grrrr). From your link, this was particularly galling: >>She will assemble an all-day roundtable on April 24 in New York, in a public forum including Wall Street bankers, corporate executives, securities professionals, journalists and other concerned interest groups in what should be a vigorous discussion on the rule's impact.<< With those players, it should be a real data gathering mission. Not. --Wilder