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 : Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Singleton who wrote (219)	7/24/1998 7:23:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4974

Peter: You've made an answer to one of Cobalt's questions easy. Cycles occur. Yes, we've all heard what smart money is saying. They're now running, licking their wounds, clearly showing that they haven't been smart at all. They're running from an old biotech sector, from an entirely different sort of effort than today's sector, and from their own lack of capacity to differentiate good science from bad. Their dogma has tarnished (and discounted) some damn good science. That science is not going to just fade away. Goodbye, Sand Hill. Hello, new funding mechanism. You're using the 12/94 yardstick that I use frequently. At that time, it was widely reported that VCs were buying shares on the public market. I focused on AGPH, and nailed a quick 10 bagger. Last week, you could have purchased 10% (or more) of MEDI's anti-CD2 projects in psoriasis, GvH and allograft rejection for $0. The innovation out there is mind-boggling. Yes, several small companies that have not yet cleared sufficient funding (including two companies in which I have private placements) may not make "public". Let's steer the "haves" of the biotech sector to "good fit" programs, before pharma picks them off. Cobalt.... I believe that you'd need to contact BVF directly to invest. Yes, I feel that you can now derive VC-like returns in the public market. One can do it by deftly moving money, with company-specific timing, from one undervalued issue to another. Or, you can find a main squeeze where you know damn well that there's a big payoff. Of course, your "know damn well" will still fail you on frequent occasion, so you need to have a basket of "know damn well"s. Peter.... I have been the primary on-line proponent for several companies. Of these, I have stuck with only two through the FDA approval process, either through the entire process or at least through the advisory committee meeting. These two issues were AGPH and GLIA. Unfortunately, I also stuck with a third company, DEPO, where I was not a primary proponent. Lesson learned, but my point is clear..... let the smart money run..... where superb science is addressing an unmet need, new funding sources will fill the void. Those who can distinguish the good science will profit. Outta here, to the beach, for a majority of the weekend. If anyone is going to be at the Informed Investors forum on Sunday, be sure to look me up. Rick

To: Peter Singleton who wrote (219)	7/24/1998 8:53:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 4974

Peter: Let me clarify..... I have been aware of the shorting. I was actually warned, on several occasions and from different sources, that the sector was going to take a hit. I believe that many of the funds that are shorting are acting in concert. There is actually a documented approach of two hedge fund managers here at SI, where they originally agreed to communicate through an intermediary at Paine Webber. I consider pointing at an entire sector and damning everything in it to be a pretty cowardly way to make money. Hats off to them, however! :-) Rick