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 : Sepracor-Looks very promising -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (1446)	11/17/1998 6:25:00 PM
From: BMcV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10280

>>When companies try to force analysts to toe the line by restricting access, the credibility of the analysts that remain in the company camp is called into question.<< Well, yes and no. Obviously we need to hear all sides and David Maris is useful to the bulls by raising the bear case, inasmuch as he's able to do so. Blind faith isn't helpful to us as investors and I hope no one is buying Sepracor without being fully aware that it could still all go horribly wrong. But on the other hand, Sepracor is building a consensus, a public image as a serious company with serious technology and real growth prospects. They don't intend to be badgered, they don't intend to be heckled by someone who seems to not really have done his homework. Their successes of late may have them feeling a little cocky and arrogant, so they may feel they don't have to put up with dissent. Not everybody does. Coke's late CEO was famously short with critics and I doubt Microsoft has much time for analysts who write that the company is going down. That degree of arrogance may be premature, but I feel Sepracor management sees their company as a coming force in the pharmaceutical market, not any longer a biotech start-up kowtowing to anyone able to offer a dollar or a kind word. And with friends like Fidelity (2.9 million shares), Putnam (2.4 million), Soros (926,000) who can blame them? Cutting a critic from a CC is ugly, and it may prove stupid, but I see it as part of the process of image-building, both in the public eye and in the way management sees themselves and their company. the figures for Soros were put together from the 13G, which is a little tricky: www4.edgar-online.com