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: Flagrante Delictu who wrote (19475)	4/23/1998 11:03:00 AM
From: bob zagorin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32384

i think i got under tony's skin. he sent me the following message. "screw-you bob. My I've never made after the fact predictions. Try sticking to the truth." i stand by what i said and my prediction that LGND will start a new up leg soon.

To: Flagrante Delictu who wrote (19475)	4/23/1998 11:43:00 AM
From: Russian Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

Bernie, Having read, and participated in, the VD thread discussion of LGND vs. LGNDW, I am amazed at your recollection of it. My recollection is that we all (you, Peter, V1, Dan, me, etc.) agreed that LGNDW was superior to LGND at their then-current (Friday) valuations. That conclusion remains valid this morning. In fact, I cannot recall anyone making the case that the common were a better buy. Had anyone done so, his would have been the lone voice, crying in the desert. Proof of my version of events is that V1 ordered the switch from the common to the warrants for the VD model portfolio. As he noted in response to you, the chief difference between your analysis and that of the rest of us is that you analyze the purchase of an equal number of shares, whereas we analyze the investment of an equal dollar amount. In my view, that is more a procedural difference than a substantive one. I will grant that your point about taking margin interest rates (currently approximately 7%, not 9%, by the way) into account, rather than only the risk-free rate incorporated into the Black-Sholes model, is a valid one. So, while academia-bashing has its time and place, this is not it, IMO. In particular, why are you so hard on the traditional analysis model when you, in fact, agree with its conclusions in this case? RB