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 : T/FIF Portfolio -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (156)	10/22/1998 10:22:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1073

Unless someone speaks up, I'll buy some more of my type of stuff Hey! what are you doing to poor Bounce? We turn our backs for a moment and you start changing it into another T/FIF portfolio <G>. Personally I think it's more interesting if you maintain different styles in the different portfolios. Peter

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (156)	10/22/1998 10:27:00 PM
From: John Metcalf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1073

"24 thousand Metcalf/Silverman bucks" -- You could send me my half-:) I agree with ARIA, SIBI, and NRGN. All three have programs that could cause sudden interest in the stocks. On the new idea side, nobody likes chemistry companies now. So PCOP fits the charred skeleton profile common to "bounce" candidates. Merger costs from the June quarter are now in the past. The tech value (mkt cap less cash/equiv) is only 100mm. Revenues are running at an $80mm annual rate, for a PSR of 1.25, within the range of value stocks. Without merger costs last quarter, PCOP would have lost only 1.2mm, so they are essentially without a cash burn rate.