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: quidditch who wrote (10342)	2/8/2004 5:15:21 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 52153

It's interesting to look at biotech companies founded by someone who has a personal stake in the disease (typically an afflicted family member). Mostly these have crashed and burned when they hit Phase III. (I'm blanking right now on actual examples though). So sometimes it's self-deception as much as any attempt at deliberate deception. The founders/scientists want to believe in their drug so much that they are willing to overlook flaws. In general, my view is that biotechs tend not to kill enough early stage products. It's easier for them to go with the flow and just keep plugging away and hope they get lucky in the final trial. I don't know if Rick would agree, but my sense is that the average quality of biotech pipeline has improved over the last five years - lower proportion of bait and switch projects. Peter

To: quidditch who wrote (10342)	2/8/2004 5:55:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Science guys will often rebel at this sort (we're now away from talking about any given company, as, while I'm hesitant to endorse APHT, I certainly don't have enough data to lump them with known cheaters) of crap. However, many of these companies are "virtual", and don't have scientists. Check out BLSI (Greenwich) for an interesting history. And then there are the companies with scientist-founders who didn't have the moral fortitude to make it honestly, and became CEOs and/or CSOs. I was once Director of Immunology at a well-known biotech, and was horrified at what I found upon landing. The founder is a guy who just does not "get" biology, IMO. He therefore IMO hired those who could grasp about as much as he did. Add that he would stand up and (bold face) lie, in public presentations, to those with the check books? The place was an ugly joke. It was very good experience (as grossly opposed to "a" very good experience) to land at a place like that. Eye opener. REGN? The bench grunts are excellent. To what degree Yancopoulos (and those who report to him) knew about the antibody issue, early? Miljenko is a better consult. I exited REGN ages ago, when they put the "trap" program into hibernation and focused on angiogenesis BASIC FRIGGING RESEARCH!!!!!!!!!! I never went back. The antibody issue sounded so outrageous when it was disclosed that it's difficult to believe that it wasn't a well-known dark secret, even among all of the scientific staff. It was a very low blow, IMO. I felt betrayed, and I wasn't even a shareholder. But, again, Miljenko would be a better judge.