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 : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (4840)	5/8/1998 7:16:00 PM
From: Cytokine1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

VD's MODEL PORTFOLIO 5/8/98 Change $5443 UP 2.57% Started 4/9/97, $100K . INDEX ^IXB UP 2.20% YTD EQUITY CHANGE 22.7% # CURRENT DAILY CURRENT COST TOTAL %GAIN/ % OF SYMBOL SHRS PRICE CHANGE %CHG VALUE SHR COST LOSS TOTAL ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= CLTR 1000 30.88 1.44 4.88% 30875 10.88 10875 183.9% 14.2% MOGN 3000 7.88 0.06 0.80% 23625 5.125 15375 53.7% 10.9% INCY 680 40.13 -1.00 -2.43% 27285 26.88 18280 49.3% 12.5% GZTC 2770 10.88 0.19 1.75% 30124 7.737 21432 40.6% 13.8% GENZ 530 30.88 0.81 2.70% 16364 23.50 12455 31.4% 7.5% BGEN 200 45.38 0.75 1.68% 9075 35.88 7175 26.5% 4.2% SEPR 146 46.50 2.00 4.49% 6789 37.16 5426 25.1% 3.1% AVIR 500 28.50 3.13 12.32% 14250 25.00 12500 14.0% 6.5% DURA 300 25.94 0.69 2.72% 7781 24.63 7388 5.3% 3.6% MLNM 300 18.75 0.50 2.74% 5625 18.63 5588 0.7% 2.6% LGNDW 3000 8.25 0.25 3.13% 24750 8.75 26250 -5.7% 11.4% REGN 1000 9.94 0.56 6.00% 9938 12.00 12000 -17.2% 4.6% GENZL 1000 7.31 -0.13 -1.68% 7313 10.36 10363 -29.4% 3.4% ABSC 400 9.50 0.00 0.00% 3800 14.94 5975 -36.4% 1.7% STOCK ______ ______ ______ ______ 217593 171081 27.2% 100.0% SHORT SALE CREDIT ______ ______ MARGIN MTCE. EQUITY 54.5% MIN 30% (99077) BUYING POWER $ ______ 19439 EQUITY (NAV) ______ ______ ______ 118516 100000 18.5% ^IXB INDEX 336.58 7.25 2.20% 302.42 11.3% NOTES: OPEN orders subject to available buying power--- Open limit buy order, min 50 shrs, max 154 shrs SEPR @ 38 or less Open limit sell order, 260 shrs GENZ @ $35 5/1/98 2125 GSII sold 500 @ 4.25, gain $0, broke even.

To: Thomas M. who wrote (4840)	5/8/1998 7:53:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9719

Thomas..... I've said similar things in the past myself. The fact is that biotech has moved closer to pharma than pharma has to biotech..... proteins are now more frequently routes to small molecule drugs (chemicals, if you like) than they are products in their own right. Yes, the lines between pharmas and biotechs have blurred. Yes, the capacity of pharmas to deal with macromolecules has grown. And, yes, if you're a small biotech with a screen but little resources and lacking certain capacities, you'd best partner with an ARQL or a PCOP fast and pray hard, or you'll be dead. It's best to find a company that can do things for pharma (INCY or ABSC, for examples, although the HTS play is getting painful) or that has the brains and resources to play the game better than pharma (MLNM or NRGN, as examples). "Play the Game Better". That's the key. Pharma execs know that they can't compete with small, innovative groups. I won't go into the reasons, but they can't. They will continue to look to the outside for innovation. I worked for Bayer. They didn't want to lay down bricks (build infrastructure), because they sensed that it was wiser to source new stuff from companies that could change directions quickly. Nonetheless, they built the research center in West Haven. What a joke. I've worked for a large pharma, and I've worked for biotechs. There is no comparison, and pharmas will never be innovative on par with little pharma (biotech). You just need to avoid the companies that are crippled by old business plans, companies that didn't evolve quickly enough to fit the new world. Go to a biomed library and get out all volumes of Bio/Technology (now Nature Biotechnology). Sit down and pick a few companies to track..... TCEL-like companies that have been around forever and that have failed to thrive. Study them in contrast to Rman's fave, INCY. INCY completely reinvented itself to fit an opportunity. In doing such, they provided a model from which all of biotech has profited. The sector now has companies that map a clear route to the clinic and commercialization, and that try to maximize the bucks flowing through labs while minimizing burn. Some of the companies that we call biotechs today will be bidding for Mercks in the future. The sad part?? If we would have had two years of Binder and then brought Rathman back, it would be occurring right now. There is absolutely no reason, other than a lack of biological insight mixed with "invented here" arrogance, that Amgen should have faltered. I dream of what Amgen could have been if they had hired Patrick Gage rather than Binder. We'd have a giant of a flag ship. That said, Binder did a great job with everything other than innovation. Rather than lose sleep over such statements, I'd suggest that you find the clever managers, the Levins and the Whitfields, that recognize that pharma has gained experience in fields that largely led to the demise of old-style biotechs. I say let pharma have it. A few small companies will, IMO, break through. I'm determined to own some of them, and to trade on hopes in the interim. Debler and Crossen are, of course, very familiar, old names to anyone who follows the sector. I'd assume that the familiar old names are still around because they successfully serve vested interests. Check out their performance relative to some who contribute to this thread, and sleep soundly? Rick

To: Thomas M. who wrote (4840)	5/8/1998 10:26:00 PM
From: Machaon	Respond to of 9719

<< Comments like the following are what keep me awake at night. >> Everytime I read a negative story, I always question the motivation of those that published it. Many times negative hype, about a sector, is followed, after a short while, by a rally in that sector. Regards, Bob

To: Thomas M. who wrote (4840)	5/10/1998 12:34:00 AM
From: Rocketman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

I think Richard really covered this well and I'd have to concur. Biotech is becoming in some respects a service to the pharma industry. But, one of the advantages that little companies have is the ability to make a decision in the hallway and execute it that minute. My guess is that never happens in a Big Pharma where any significant action would have to be formally presented, which requires lots of prep and scheduling to get everyone there at the same time, management has to be sold on it, it would have to be reviewed and approved and scheduled and put into a budget and gee, maybe next year they'd get around to it. At INCY, it was quite common for some pretty damn major decisions to be made by snagging Roy Whitfield in the hall or by walking in his office where the door was always open, he'd snag Randy Scott and whoever else should be there, it was discussed and decided upon, quite often in a 30 second to 5 minute time frame. In 4 1/2 years there, I never did a formal presentation of an idea, it was always done off the cuff. Now as INCY has grown quite a bit, I would suspect that some of this flexibility has diminished, but the level of bureaucracy at INCY I doubt will ever rival that of Pharmas. Pharmas cannot move this fast. They are huge collections of fiefdoms and there is always some VP or director of something or other throwing a wrench in the gears of inovation. Rman