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 : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Night Trader who wrote (12927)	1/1/1998 4:31:00 PM
From: Henry Niman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

martin, I have a Zack's report dated 12/13/97 which shows the following for LGND: FISC YR END 12/98 -0.87 -0.51 -1.25 4 0.00 FISC YR END 12/97 -1.35 -1.17 -1.59 5 -0.01 For the past year there are 5 estimates ranging from a loss of 1.17 to a loss of 1.59 with an average of 1.35. Since they were 5 brokerage houses covering LGND, I assume that each made an estimate for the year. With Raymond James on the sidelines, there are 4 houses covering LGND and Zacks shows 4 estimates (which would be before the Bear Stearns revision of 12/31/97) for 1998. They show a rather dramatic improvement, with losses ranging from 0.51 to 1.25 with an average loss of just 0.87 for the year. I expect those numbers to be even lower after Bear Stearns' lastest numbers are factored in. Although the range in estimates is quite large, the trend is very clear. A loss of 51 cents for the year is less than $20 million, which strongly suggests that there will be no secondary. Even the worst case scenario of a loss of 1.25 would leave LGND with a significant amount of cash in the bank at the end of 1998, and I suspect that most analysts will be predicting a profit sometime between the end of this year and the end of next year.

To: Night Trader who wrote (12927)	1/1/1998 7:21:00 PM
From: tonyt	Respond to of 32384

I find it interesting that when you posted here awhile back that zacks reported to you that an analyst dropped coverage the intial reaction was that either zacks was wrong or that you made a mistake. No one believed that it could be true. Now you post that zacks reports that bs made new estimates, yet no one questions that. As a matter of fact, everyone has interpreted that 'new' estimates means that they raised estimates, when maybe they were lowered. The avg recomendation per zacks dropped again last week: quote.yahoo.com , yet no one seems to notice (or care). I've got to get myself a pair of those rose colored glasses :-) --Tony

To: Night Trader who wrote (12927)	1/1/1998 7:52:00 PM
From: Henry Niman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

martin, The current Zack's report is exactly the same as the last. LGND still has 3 STRONG BUYS (Bear Stearns, Roberston Stephens, and Lehman Brothers) and 1 BUY (Hambrecht & Quist). In the past they had a STRONG BUY from Raymond James, who at the present time has dropped coverage. When you initially indicated that Raymond James had changed LGND's rating from a STRONG BUY to a HOLD, there were questions raised and they seem to be legitimate (I have yet to see a Zack's listing showing the Raymond James HOLD rec). The current rec list is the same as the last (and there is no HOLD rec). As far as the new Bear Stearns' estimate is concerned, I am fairly certain that it represents the first prediction of a LGND profit for this year. Prior to LGND's statements on profitability in 1999, all other analysts had projected a significant loss for 1999, well in excess of $1.00 (as also reported by Jesse Eisinger). No one commented on a change in this week's ratings for LGND because THERE WAS NO CHANGE. Last week it was 3 STRONG BUYS and 1 BUY and its the same this week. LGND had 4 STRONG BUYS and 1 BUY for many months. The only recent change was the one you reported several weeks ago when Raymond James stopped coverage.