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: Cary Salsberg who wrote (6609)	6/21/2002 8:04:31 PM
From: Robohogs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Thank you for the techie's point of view but you are wrong. Profitless biotechs have been public for many decades and profits at many companies are improving. Jon

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (6609)	6/22/2002 10:35:47 AM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 52153

<I don't think "replacement cost" is very useful, either. Proprietary is not too important if there are 5 proprietary drugs to combat the same malady> Your points are well taken. However, I think replacement cost is a much more useful metric than most others particularly with the development stage companies. The reason is that nobody has a clue (except Richard) what is going to work and what isn't. I remember Centacor being left for dead after its sepsis drug failed and a few years later being purchased at a ten bagger by J&J. I think SCIO also exploded and then came back. The point is that in predicting the floor (which is where we are I think), it is much more useful than P/S or other metrics. And you can't come close to replicating most of these companies at current market caps. Finally, I know of no maladies that have 5 approved proprietary drugs.