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 (5210)	12/22/2001 4:49:16 PM
From: jayhawk969	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Commenting a bit further on the Barron's article..... I did not appreciate "tarring" all Biotech with the same brush. I do not own Amgen and I do not own Pfizer. However, given the choice I would buy Pfizer. The insinuation that Biotech may be getting overheated again is interesting. A couple of comparisons and then poor deductive reasoning. What can one expect. I guess that is why I spend 1/10 the time on Barrons as I do SI.

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (5210)	12/23/2001 5:51:15 PM
From: Doc Bones	Respond to of 52153

The cash stash was not used with foresight at a point (among the most glaring of time points, 1998) when technology was available for close-to-free. It was very frustrating to watch. In 1998 the smaller biotechs were starving for cash, and the pharmas (and big, pharma-like biotechs), weren't helping with percentage deals that would make Scrooge blush, and lack of interest in investment. This seemed irrational in the face of the pharmas' shrinking pipelines. Why did they do it? The pharmas really disliked the biotechs, and wanted them to die off. To them, startups were upstarts, siphoning off the best researchers and business talent, running competitive research programs on a shoestring. I'm sure they thought that squeezing the biotechs to death was the best outcome for them in 1998, and so that was the rational strategy. But I think it was emotional too. They were having too much fun batting around the little biotechs. "Oh look, Mr. Biotech, there's Mr. Toxic. Why don't you run into his arms, he'll protect you. Bwahaha." Pharmas could argue that killing off the smaller biotechs was their best result: the talent and products have to come back to the big companies. But it's a dangerous strategy when it fails: the biotechs are still there, and the Pharmas' pipelines are dangerously low. For that reason I think it was more emotional, venting and acting out their hostility to the biotechs. I dipped my toe into biotech in 1998 with some trepidation. There were well-reasoned articles in The New York Times, San Jose Mercury-News, etc., saying that small biotechs were an endangered species, simply starved for funding. Luckily I found the fearless fanatics of SI biotech (previously I'd been relying on Michael Murphy, not good, 'nuff said), and went on quite a joyride. I did discover that the rocket was actually a roller coaster, but overall a heck of a ride. Merry Xmas to all the helpers who filled up Santa's sack, and everyone else too! Peace on Earth. Doc