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 Stock Picking - 2003 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: keokalani'nui who wrote (198)	4/18/2003 12:51:01 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 383

1. But people will look at yours, read the rules, and presume that you got away with violating the 20% law. :-) 2. Too neat and tidy for my tastes. :-) I'll just leave mine the way it is, and stealth up on anyone who thinks that they're nosing me out at the end.

To: keokalani'nui who wrote (198)	4/21/2003 2:12:04 PM
From: michael_f_murphy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 383

>>Now that the tax man has had it with you maybe you could consider this important matter. One has to adjust the original cost basis of the remaining securities if the acquired security is deleted from the portfolio in order to keep the SI portfolio gain percentage calculation correct. [How would I have tried to do it? (Now that I have the benefit of hindsight!) Keep the original cost in the portfolio with a current $0 market value, e.g. use symbol OGSI.OLD? Then add additional, separate "purchases" of the other existing securities with $0 cost but the appropriate number of shares/value, dated appropriately? Has a bit more "paper trail" look to it but should work??:-) ] All this historical accounting backfilling seems like too much effort when one can determine relative perfomance equally well by just using the portfolio value. So I think cost basis adjustment is "optional". Yours looks very nice though :-) Just so there will be no surprises then: The portfolio rankings are based on final market value, not the indicated gain percentage. OK by everyone?

To: keokalani'nui who wrote (198)	8/24/2003 2:14:38 PM
From: tuck	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 383

OK, I've adjusted my account for the RIGL veronica reverso. The IGEN deal hasn't yet consumated. For grins, I looked at everyone's portfolios. Erik is still in front at a bit over 100%, with Hopper on his heels at just under 100%. There are three of us battling for 3rd through 5th -- Mr. Ranney, myself, and Jorgen, respectively -- in the 80% range. In the 70% range and below, the distribution gets smoother. And I've no clue what Wilder's portfolio is doing because it's private. Cheers, Tuck