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 : Imclone systems (IMCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cacaito who wrote (2037)	2/15/2002 8:58:07 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2515

Cacaito, I think Frankel is on to something very interesting with his thesis , ""Some level of optimism (rosey view) is required in leaders." "A lot could be explained by this phenomenon." The boiler plate in S.E.C. filings is one way companies handle this as it allows them to say everything is such a negative tone that it is generally dismissed as boilerplate but should the dire events occur the company can claim they told everyone. The reason Frankel does not see everyone as a liar or a crook is because he recognizes the implicit bias and in fact need for a rosy or positive view. You see another companies management as liars while I see them as dealing in truth in an acceptable way. But I was never able to understand much less express why we differed, until reading your friend's post.

To: Cacaito who wrote (2037)	2/16/2002 10:01:31 AM
From: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 2515

Hi cacaito, You wrote a very good reply. I think that our differences are partly linguistic, stylistic. We also seem to reach conclusions differently. I require a pretty high level of proof before I will say I am sure of something or even that I believe it. To illustrate, I have been involved in matters that were reported in news papers and magazines many times. Every article was wrong in some material respect. That has left me pretty careful about believing what I read. I do tend to believe propositions that accord with the structure and properties of the world that I can identify, whether those are science, common sense, legal theories or just good business practices. I am disappointed far less by trusting in “structure” than newspapers or statements by people. When evidence seems to contradict the structures that I have come to trust – I look for higher levels of proof before I will accept the contradictory data. Your apologies are unnecessary and most gracious. I do not deserve so kind a response. I did get testy. Sorry. 4 – If I have this right, you “feel” that the legal department of BMY supports a suit against IMCL. I do not know if that is well founded – it may be. It is also possible that the saber rattling by BMY management is hollow. 5 – I think that BMY should vigorously defend their rights. Litigation is certainly one way to do that if the facts and law support it. My guess is that the “if” will not be satisfied. I may be wrong. “Bmy … after being cheated” You say, that this is very clear. This is an example of where you and I apply a different standard for reaching this type of conclusion. I respectfully disagree. 6 – On this one I think that I did a poor job of stating my point. It is not surprising that you misunderstood – mea culpa. BMY invested $1.2 billion so far in IMCL. They did that with the idea of getting a return, a profit on that investment. By that I mean that they want to get their investment back and more. They likely want multiples of what they investment. Say that the expect to get 4X (four times) their investment back – say $4.8 billion. Yet in a successful suit IMCL could not even repay half of the $1.2 billion, much less repay the investment and the profit expectation that BMY had. There is only one way for BMY to get what they thought they were buying. That is to get C-225 approved and successfully commercialize it. In a way, that analysis begs the question. I would criticize my own statement by saying that BMY could improve their share of the drug by a suit that results in a settlement or favorable judgment. In the real world, this strategy fails, IMHO because of the direct and indirect costs (delay of the drug approval and commercialization process) of the litigation process. My question to you is how do you see litigation by BMY against IMCL getting BMY their investment back? Where will the money come from? 7 – If I understand you correctly, you accept the statements of a scientist quoted in the NYT who commented on why he fired Sam. I would reserve judgment until I heard both sides. There usually are two sides. BTW, if the statements are libelous then those who republish them can also be liable. Granted you would be a less attractive target. But some posters have managed to get themselves sued. A couple have contacted me after finding themselves a defendants in lawsuits – greatly surprised. 8 – Ok, you did not say that the shorts used the leak. I’ll take credit for that one – I believe Avalon and one other broker in Florida were advising shorting IMCL. If they did would you make the same statement that the leak was OK because the information belonged to the stockholders? BTW, I have no doubt that many people who read the Cancer Letter shorted IMCL. It was out early and credible. Some people could even have read my statement after listening to the CC as supporting a short of IMCL at 46 – I called for it to drop to 20-35. 9. " First, the premise that sam knew all the problems, is in doubt." I retain my doubts. I suspect you have read as I have how the FDA has given mixed signals. We also read early in this soap opera that within the FDA there were warring factions that wanted different results. One of the difficulties that people have is that they often believe what they want to believe. If the signals were mixed, humans being what they are, they could have picked up on the affirmative and dismissed the negatives. It happens. Perhaps, I have too much confidence in BMY. <"Some level of optimism (rosey view) is required in leaders.", I value my money, I want the information, not their optimism.> I fear that you can’t get it. If you ever figure out how to get it – tell me. <g> "A lot could be explained by this phenomenon." This is not excuse at all for withholding material information, mismanaged a trial, impaired a drug development, cheating a partner, insider trading, 70% loss of value, tons of class action lawsuits, SEC/FBI/Congress investigation, and lying blatantly outright. Keep the leadership optimism, give me the money.> There certainly are lots of bits of information that support your conclusions. But the world often defies being painted in black and white – there is lots of grey out there. A question for you – if you were on trial for your life, would you want a judge who reached absolute conclusions as easily as you do? <g> ij