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: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (223)	11/10/1998 11:41:00 PM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Respond to of 1073

Max: <<...What else do you see different or better about PCOP, or is the entire subsector also <<fundamentally grossly undervalued>>? First, entire subsector is fgu. Why? Bit s*** out of me. Ignorance and indolence?, non understanding the issue involved?, momentum player?, luck of hype news?, low liquidity stocks, ....???? I detected ( and I think that many bt investors will agree with me) that small/large bt coms, as well as pharma, show significant shift toward small molecules drug discovery. Pills are pills. Example is REGN (or MLNM): two years ago REGN was pure protein player. Today in every announced they have emphasis on small molecules. Can REGN quickly and efficiently generate chemical libraries for their needs? I do not think so. Economic and speed is advantage of the small molecule drugs, compared to mAb, vaccines, proteins, gene therapy, vectors,...Also, there are significant new development in formulations of this small molecules which will increase their advantage and usage. Definitely bio/pharma industry have/will exponentially grow in disease target numbers (from genomic). Nevertheless, there is limited target numbers, but almost unlimited numbers of small molecules which can be screened for this targets. For anyone math exercise: What are the structure variations numbers for simple molecule: C20H28N4O3? Who will generate this structural diversity (remember any new drug have to be at least bit different than current drugs, not necessary new class compounds), this enormous large number of new compounds? Small bts...seriously limitation. large bts...limited source for to many targets, large pharma...conservative approach, to slow to adapt. To summarized, bio-science already show shortage of the small compounds libraries, IMO. So, it is up to specialized coms who will dedicated their source for chemical libraries generations, in many cases it will be based for specific costumer needs. But knowledge and diversity will stay in house, ready to replicate for next target/costumer. This time with smaller costs and higher speed. All in all, combi/compu chem coms are not commodity/service type company. Their business is sound and of great value. Very small bts number can satisfy their current chemistry needs. I own QRQL (bought ARQL from 15 to 5) and recently PCOP (average ~9). If I choose CCHM and TRGA I will very closely fill the some. There is plenty of space for several combi/comput chem player, so who will benefit the most is no way to predict, imo. Why PCOP: 1. The bts with largest chemical libraries, 2. recent news show that they can satisfy partners (extended/expanded collaborations), 3. respectable screening capability and growing in-house biology, 4. respectable partners, with growing collaborations value, 5. MSI brought new dimension to their business, 6. sound management, 7. sub-10 stock price is very attractive for investor with patience (give them a time to show what they have and what they can do). I agree with Rick that there may be some problem with MSI integration, but this may well be human factor, not necessary luck of wisdom for integration and future business. Every pure combi bts (ARQL, CCHM, TRGA,..) has it own specialty, so direct comparison is not wise, IMO. Also, I think that there is no mistake if one chose other ones until company has clear approach to future. Miljenko