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 : IVAX Insider Trading -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jcashin who wrote (161)	11/6/1997 10:00:00 PM
From: 5,17,37,5,101,...	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 756

Your skepticism is abundantly appropriate and expected and does not surpass my own. Yet one must keep one's eye on the target. It is true that Cohen's buy rating is meaningless and should be entirely disregarded. If you read prior posts you'll see my reasoning for being long at this price: a) substantial insider buys at $13 - $15 with some follow up buying at 10. In a world of imperfect information, this is not to be ignored. Ivax is most likely fairly valued somewhere around $13 - $14/share; b) a paxene approval is most likely imminent, and is following on the heels of asset divestitures and cost/debt reductions; c) Frost is not likely to watch Ivax fall apart completely. He will salvage what he can by selling if he has to as he did with Key Pharmaceuticals during the 1980's. d) the slide in generic drug prices has ceased and may be rising (see recent news articles and the price of MYL stock). Barring a market meltdown, Ivax should do fairly well from here. I'm not trying to convince you to buy, only, well ... I don't know what I'm doing. Jackson

To: jcashin who wrote (161)	11/7/1997 6:51:00 AM
From: flickerful	Respond to of 756

<<raises his coverage>> First of all, i have enough of my own skepticism to entertain a devil's advocate. Just read my posts. And by the way: this is NEW coverage, INITIATED yesterday which makes one wonder if the other analysts would react as you did...hmm. My question is whether this new coverage is not actually based on a Paxene development, of which we are, of course, unaware. NOW THAT would enhance our analyst's image, wouldn't it, if it were so timed, on the heels of abysmal earnings, and just before an FDA announcement... Well, it's a thought anyway.