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: Jibacoa who wrote (3761)	5/11/2001 3:13:42 PM
From: Jibacoa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Here is some comments in support of that possibility and adding ORCH to the list. marketwatch.com ORCH is up 16.91% on volume of 1,984,000 (much higher than average).<g> siliconinvestor.com Bernard

To: Jibacoa who wrote (3761)	5/11/2001 3:41:57 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

I don't see most of the genomics companies as good munch companies. The issue is always why buy the company rather than just partner if they have some technology you want. In the case of VRTX/ABSC, the story was that when VRTX looked at all the places they could use the ABSC technology, it was cheaper to just buy the company. MRK has not been seen as in the forefront of genomics, and so partly this was just catch up on their part. I believe that what RSTA was doing will have wide application to many programs at MRK. However I'm not sure I can see the same breadth for most other genomics companies. My guess is that to the extent companies like GLGC (which I own) and SQNM (which I don't) have technologies useful to a potential acquirer, a simple license would be the likely outcome. Other genomics companies are so widely partnered (think INCY) that an acquisition by one company just doesn't make sense. This merger does reinforce the notion that the genomics companies are not all dot.com fluff, and that some have real value as measured by a hard-nosed pharma with a pronounced "not-invented-here" bias. This merger is definitely good news for the sector in the short- and middle-run. Peter

To: Jibacoa who wrote (3761)	5/11/2001 3:43:45 PM
From: Lighthouse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Apologies for jumping in. GLGC might pose a bit of a problem in that they have subscription deals with many companies. Makes an outright acquisition a lot harder (a big mess) for a big pharma. Another bio-info company could do a deal. CRA? RSTA did not have too many outside deals to have to square away. Also had lots of cash on hand so the deal value to MRK is a lot lower than the acqusition price suggests. MRK is an in house company by reputation and action. In the past they have not in-licensed many (any?) molecules. Certainly as compared to PFE and others. As another example they are the only large pharma not to subscribe to INCY's database (the only one of 20). Preferring to go it alone. What makes RSTA's product so desireable that MRK wanted to own it completely? I am sure they could have signed a deal with RSTA anytime they wanted. How much where they going to spend to do these same techniques? Perhaps a better question is what did MRK see that they did not want others to get their hands on?