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 : Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MLNM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John O'Neill who wrote (173)	4/8/1998 10:56:00 PM
From: SJS	Respond to of 3044

Short list? Is that because they like it or because they don't? I am grinning here, as you can guess. <g>. Thanks.

To: John O'Neill who wrote (173)	4/9/1998 9:10:00 AM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3044

John, <<MCDE expected to meet all expenses from it's cash flow for next 5 years.>> Just to clarify, I was referring to CBST when I said it looked to me like they'd need to raise money this year. Maybe we should just keep talking about them on this thread, seeing we're all here already. They're related to MLNM because they're all "undervalued biotechs" <G> or maybe :(. ALthough MCDE and CBST are the pure plays, a number of biotechs I follow seem to be jumping on this problem (e.g., SEPR and NXTR). It's a nice, simple story, so I'm surprised that MCDE and CBST haven't attracted more attention. I think at this point CBST is going to be driven by the drug they licensed from Lilly (Daptomycin), rather than by its own pipeline. This was an interesting strategy, by the way - makes the company look "real" much sooner, and maybe people will foreget they didn't develop the drug themselves (like Viracept and AGPH). I wonder why Lilly licensed the drug? Milestones are to be paid in stock, by the way. Peter

To: John O'Neill who wrote (173)	4/9/1998 12:46:00 PM
From: JOEBT1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3044

Jo I'm interested in MCDE but have some qualms. The formation of Iconex seems to be a big negative. They lost their COO who also was their scientific leader and ended up with only a 35% interest in Iconex. They certainly seemed to have enough money to keep the Iconex work in house-so I assume their COO forced the issue. One would conclude that the COO thought the opportunities for Iconex were higher than MCDE. Also MCDE is committed to support Iconex for 3 years with 6.1 million a year which will probably cause them to raise equity capital well before 5 years. How do you interpret all this? JOEBT1