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 : Munch-a-Biotech Today -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (131)	2/9/1999 10:03:00 AM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3158

David, Part of what's unique about biotech is that the insiders may (sometimes) be as surprised as the rest of us when a drug prospect bombs. One of the problems with small biotechs is that I think there is sometimes a process of self-deception. When so much of the company's (and executives') fortune are tied up in just a few drug candidates, it is awfully tempting to not ask the key questions and/or not perform the key experiments that might doom your candidate. The big pharma, with a few hundred candidates, can afford to be much more dispassionate. However, insider purchases, sales and even the lack thereof can be useful data points. A pattern of purchases and/or sales followed by silence can be an indicator of a big development (on either the upside or downside). SEPR is a good example of the absence of insider sales despite a soaring price. Compare to say AGPH, where there was a steady drumbeat of sales in the early surge after Viracept approval. The AGPH example is the norm, and may indicate nothing more than executives sensibly diversifying. Peter