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 : Elan Corporation, plc (ELN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (1601)	2/9/2002 12:44:08 PM
From: John Metcalf	Respond to of 10345

"The trick is to realize when you've played a risky situation for too long and to make the best of your INDEPENDENT DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE IN LIGHT OF SUFFICIENT DISCLOSURE." I keep coming back to this same thought. If Elan concealed the nature of the partnerships, what have we been discussing all these years? A number of old news items on the partnerships have been posted recently in the T/FIF thread, documenting that Elan has disclosed the workings of EPIL I and EPIL II for years. No one has been entirely convincing in these discussions. Some lament that Elan's revenues have been pumped, in a kind of vendor financing, a la CISCO. Some believe the bottom line has been flattered by not sufficiently detailing research costs. Some believe that equity is not determinable because there is no public market for half the companies in the deals. Only David Maris seems to think that "underterminable" means the same thing as "without value". There has been agreement that Elan has been making money, has more than sufficient capital, and has significant equity in a huge number of other companies. The fact that such discussions have been going on for so long verifies that Elan has disclosed at least enough information for investors to disagree about its accounting-:)

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (1601)	2/9/2002 1:12:28 PM
From: The Dodgy Ticker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10345

<<To the "litigation pr*cks"....... the trick is to determine if the leverage determines a double down. The trick is to realize when you've played a risky situation for too long and to make the best of your INDEPENDENT DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE IN LIGHT OF SUFFICIENT DISCLOSURE>> Rick, I call it "reverse-hedging"--see if the courts will compensate you for your own mistakes (Like building a house on a beach subject to hurricanes -- why should any public monies be used to compensate for that?) Nice trick if you can get away with it. NOT. Maybe the remaining shareholders who remain philosophical about their investment decisions and hopeful about the longer term prospects of the company should counter-sue the litigation idiots who proclaim that a stock they bought has no legitimate right to decrease in value. After all, frivolous litigation costs further erode the stock's value. I'm fed up with litigation abuse. Bob