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 : Pharmos (PARS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Israel-Rosen who wrote (49)	11/3/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: Ron	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1386

Not trying to take sides, but Pharmos, to me, recieves a "D" also on the release. My initial emotions were "oh no". I also have been bottom fishing long enough, it is time for hunting.

To: David Israel-Rosen who wrote (49)	11/3/1998 5:24:00 PM
From: Don Walster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1386

Dear David Israel- Rosen: I suggest that it will be more effective for you and other qualified people to make suggestions to Pharmos, than to invite a barrage of criticism. I hope that others with your qualifications will join you, as our spokespersons, in expressing our concern. Kindest regards, Don

To: David Israel-Rosen who wrote (49)	11/3/1998 10:02:00 PM
From: Ariella	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1386

Managements come with certain temperaments and so do shareholders. Ours are obviously different. By chance we have invested heavily in the same company, but that doesn't mean that we're analyzing the situation similarly with respect to investment return or time horizon. Misunderstanding what kind of an investor I am, you brand me a cheerleader and, by extension, accuse me of falling in love with the company and blinding myself to its faults. To me it seems the opposite: you are the emotional one, taking me to task for not being upbeat enough when I say the stock price isn't moving until the HU-211 partner is announced, and then berating me when the stock doesn't move up (as predicted) because I can't see what a bad PR job management is doing. Actually I see PARS very clearly and understand its limitations as well as its promise. Most prominent are the limitations of personnel and money. Limitations of personnel come under the banner of numbers (45 employees) and temperament (scientific types, prone to exactness and anti-hype, although some people consider the latter a plus). Limitations of money come under the simple heading of lack of earnings. I've been a senior manager at a publicly-traded company. Had 125 people under my supervision and was later a consultant for small businesses in development. From that vantage, I think PARS has much more in common with the small businesses than it does with the stereotypical "big" publicly-traded companies. Aside from the head of scientific research (who's stationed in Israel), we've got a CEO, a COO, a CFO, an IR person and a secretary for "staff" in the U.S. That's it! We might be a multi-million dollar revenue-producing company in 24 months, but right now you can count our staff people on one hand. So tell me how these people, one of whom is mostly overseas, are supposed to knock at all the appropriate doors on Wall Street and still pilot us through the host of development issues coming over the next year, i.e., urging BOL on to the next level for Alrex and Lotemax in Europe, getting PIII for LE-T underway and the NDA finished, ramping up PI of Tamoxifen, negotiating a singularly important partnership for HU-211. And don't tell me Ruder Finn is the answer. RF has an important role at the company, but it can't make policy decisions on its own. They require a lot of management time for planning and execution, time that is currently needed elsewhere. Did you listen to the conference call today? The CFO said about 75% of their time is involved on the issue of the partner for HU-211. This figure is not accurate because they don't keep time sheets. But it tells me the priority at the company is to nail down a great deal for HU-211, one that will bring publicity, at least a year's worth of operating cash, and one that opens the door to the "next" stage in corporate development. I'm happy with this priority and if it comes at the expense of short-term stock appreciation, so be it. A year from now my portfolio will be better off because of this focus than if they split their attention another way and drop the whole ball in the process. So, no, I'm not cheerleading for management. I'm looking at them as if they work for me (hey, I'm a shareholder -- they do work for me, don't they?) and applauding their decision to prioritize their work in this way because it raises the likelihood that they'll achieve the bigger goal. When the HU-211 partner is bagged, then I'll be ready for the full-court press on management about raising our visibility on the Street. That's 6 months away though. I want to make 5 or 10 or more times my money on this investment within 30 months and look single-mindedly down the pike to next spring when significant milestones have been met that will actually be able to propel the stock up to a higher level. Meanwhile, I am a disgruntled shareholder. Not with management. With everyone who's banging their fists now on the table demanding that management do something to raise the stock price. Management is currently maxed out. Until they're financially able to hire more people (when the money comes in from the HU-211 partnership), this situation will not change. So I hope they don't listen to your suggestion. I don't want them to do anything that would jeopardize those financial goals I've got for the stock at the end of 1999 and beyond. Best regards, Ariella