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 : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chirodoc who wrote (5051)	12/8/1997 9:57:00 AM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

I find all three of them to offer value. Subscribe to Sturza and Murphy. Sturza concentrates only on biotech and gives shorts directly in the same letter. His performance record is more clearly spelled out. Sturza provides more detail on the science involved and IMO on competition for the drugs under development, than does Murphy. Have not commented much on MacCamant since it has been years since I subscribed to his letter. I also find what is not said of importance, and also changes in what is said. I try to think of what impact a mention of a new stock will have on readers given the number of situations already mentioned and price action of "new" stock in the recent past. Sturza, is hated, because shorts get crazy when anyone thinks the stock they love is overvalued. He is more intense and less personable than Murphy, or MacCamant. I would say Sturza is more business like, more intense and has less of a sense of humor. If some network person asked a dumb question Sturza would IMO probably say why he thougt it was dumb, while Jim and Mike IMO would bail the other person out. In other words Sturzas my type of guy. <g>