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 : Chromatics Color Sciences International. Inc; CCSI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jpbrody who wrote (2922)	6/11/1998 6:41:00 PM
From: Roger A. Babb	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5736

jp, I agree that Asensio mauled several of his arguments and I found the whole tone of it offensive and over-done even though I agree with some of his conclusions. I don't like hype from either side of the fence. The Tylenol comparison was right on target. The revenue from this device that will find its way to CCSI is not nearly enough to support the current market cap in my opinion. Over priced? yes Over hyped? yes Too optimistic? yes A fraud? I see no evidence of that, they really do have a product. A less than $1 stock? My opinion is $3 to $5 And I predict CCSI will remain volatile. Longs should not be buying on margin and shorts should have deep enough pockets to stand a run back over $10. Everyone be careful, and be nice to each other!

To: jpbrody who wrote (2922)	6/11/1998 8:45:00 PM
From: Quad Sevens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5736

<< His point is not that 15,000,000 x $22 is not equal to $330 million, but that it's false and misleading to imply that is the potential market for CCSI's bilirubin testing. >> That was not his point. His point was to confuse the market for monitoring with the market for serum-bilirubinometers, which is insane. JP: You could have done a better short-sale report in 5 minutes. In fact, so could I, and I am long (a little). CCSI never implied the 330 million was its own market. However, some longs on this board did so, initially. And it was certainly wrong of CCSI to release the 330 million figure without some disclaimer to the effect that "of course insurance billings are far over the market that CCSI can address", or something. To be fair, CCSI did say << The company also stated that it could not at this time disclose the pricing structure and business models currently being discussed with different potential distribution partners, including any increased market potential for noninvasive testing. In this regard, the company has recently retained the services of two business advisors to assist in current discussions, analysis and execution of its long range marketing and distribution plan. >> JP: Most longs understand this point. Many people on this thread asked, over and over, for a more realistic assessment of CCSI's potential, based on the % of the 22 to 34 bucks/bili that might accrue to CCSI. They never got it, despite a lot of people here with hospital/medical backgrounds. When this sticky point was repeatedly raised, the answer was "No one can say until the deal is signed", which is partly true but mostly copout. So I agree the co. is at fault by publishing the 330 million figure without a more thorough discussion. But Asensio is so far gone on his rampage that he doens't even mention this very good point. That was your point, not his. Wade