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 : T/FIF, a New Plateau -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael_f_murphy who wrote (1153)	5/1/2002 2:51:34 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2243

>> You lost me, as "double counting" is usually a "bad thing" ;-) << Then try using "broadly distributing" rather than double counting? I am taking 214M, discounting it to about 110M, and distributing it to cash (60M) and the two non-entero projects. Is that more clear or better? For the traditional biotech investor, it's quite conservative. I don't give a damn where the $214M comes from. Makes no difference to me if it is a loan. It's cash that can be used to develop drugs, and HCV is a nice market. Blocks after the close yesterday, and it looks like maybe a 250K share block just went through? >> If a program's "value" does not include the particular program's cash burn i.e. it is "gross" value, all development expenses and liabilities are covered in the 70% discount of the current cash on hand then I'm beginning to see the light. :-) << No need to get fancy. The current market cap is 85M. They have approximately 210M in the bank. Use whatever you like for burn. My total valuation at $6/share is a severe discount to the CURRENT assets. I allowed for two years of burn, poof! But I haven't a clue regarding what sort of potential liability should be assigned for lawsuits.

To: michael_f_murphy who wrote (1153)	7/17/2002 1:38:27 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2243

Very, very difficult for me to go here, but....... There is only one rational explanation, IMO, for the price behavior, VPHM shares....... those who hold the convertible notes control the share price, as they KNOW that they can control the conversion ratio, and they KNOW that conversion is coming soon, rather than toward 2007. Given this, there is an additional conclusion that can't, IMO, be escaped...... de Rosen et al. are guilty of criminal action. That's an opinion only, but I find no other reasonable conclusion. Thoughts? Doesn't mean that I'm going to sell, as I believe in the HCV leverage, even if those who hold the convertible are in control. I've never seen a company that leaves supportive shareholders holding the short straw like these guys/gals do.