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: Icebrg who wrote (8727)	6/22/2003 10:08:29 AM
From: Icebrg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

The BioMaven 100. It appears as if I had better to adjust my inclusion criteria for the selection. To start with I just selected the companies in the NBI-index. As they provided a sample of the industry. Facing the intention to increase the number to 100 the question comes regarding what criteria that should be used. The easiest answer is the Market Cap. If the market considers them important, they most probably are - in one way or another. So, I used one of Jennifer's lists to pick out the remaining companies. It turns out there are a lot of them. And some with quite substantial market caps. There is really no reason to exclude some of these companies in favour of smaller companies that just happen to be in the index. So, I will be changing the inclusion criteria to be the 100 largest companies (by market cap.) in the industry. Next question - which industry. Biotech is a suitably vague term. Who is in and who is not? First and foremost the most important criteria should be that the companies should be developing drugs. Or at least be trying to do so. They will not all succeed. But what about small molecules vs. biologics. If small molecules are excluded there is no space for Sepracor. Which is a company I want included on the list. Because they happen to be one of my favorites. So, the inclusion criteria is that they should be developing biologics or at least behave as if they did. I think that more or less covers the perception of the "sector". And talking about favorites. I have included Elan. There is absolutely a lot biotech-ish about them these days. Their lead development candidate is a monoclonal and their AD franchise looks bio too. And they almost ran out of money. Which is also representative for the sector. Of course, if one wanted to be strict Amgen should be excluded. They are a pharma these days, who just happens to be developing biologic drugs. But as they are perceived as the most successful biotech company ever, I cannot really leave them out. And in addition - without them the figures would look decidedly worse. AMGN is consequently in. But I will not include device makers and Tuck's Tricklers or service providers. Unless they are into drug development too. Genomic companies? Well, are there any left? They are all trying to recast themselves. So, they will qualify even if they make some money on the side by selling information. Celera? I didn't find them on the list. Should they be included? Generic manufacturers? I would say no. They are not developing anything. Even though they fulfill an important function. Any comments? In all haste. Erik