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 Short Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tuck who wrote (145)	12/22/2001 4:53:47 PM
From: Michael Young	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 897

Keep in mind that LGND will get 6% royalties from an osteo drug that is in Phase III for numerous indications with PFE. PFE expects it could be a multi-billion dollar drug. MIKE

To: tuck who wrote (145)	12/22/2001 5:27:32 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 897

tuck, I don't know about the short term, but I feel that both these stocks are pretty dangerous long-term shorts. (I own small amounts of both). For CEPH, I think Provigil sales will just keep growing and growing. I think you may get a snowball effect - increasing sales will increase the market for the drug rather than coming closer to saturating it. There is no competition in sight for this drug, and so at this point it's just a question of marketing and label expansion. For LGND, I agree with Rick that Ontak for psoriasis is a complete bust. They may well get some label expansion for refractory CLL and maybe NHL, though. A successful trial for Targretin in lung cancer would do wonders for sales on that front. Note LGND is now ramping up revenue nicely (2002 estimated revenues are triple 2000 revenues), and the forthcoming Morphelan approval should help quite a bit. It also has a sleeper in its early stage SGRM program. These are kinder, gentler steroids, and they would be absolute blockbusters if successful. LGND also has a "strong buy" from Mike King at Robbie Stephens, not something I'd ever like to see in one of my shorts. Peter

To: tuck who wrote (145)	12/22/2001 5:43:37 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 897

I sold LGND at 17 in 1996 and loudly made the "nothing but dilution for foreseeable future" call. I entered briefly after the mouse studies with a growth factor mimic, losing a few bucks. So.... as much as I resent the five years of empire building, I agree with Mike and Peter. I feel that J.D.'s comment is a warning, however, for those who might expect above average growth..... even given a nice royalty stream, will Robinson et al. spread any leverage out on more empire? I would guess that psoriasis isn't built into the share price. I was surprised to see how well the stock has performed. Last time I looked, it was battling back and forth with single digits.