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: smh who wrote (666)	3/7/1999 4:52:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1073

:-) I've used the phrase here at SI myself, and.... curiously, I picked it up from either Freudenthal or von Emster at the Informed Investors forum that inspired the launch of this thread. I think that's a very balanced discussion. However, it misses one fundamental.... the attitude, the investment thesis, is based on observations from a product-starved '92-'94 and a product-focussed '95-present. I argue that, in a sector where the bruises are in, 1991-like valuations for patents and preclincal research are valid. That is, I argue that the true roach motels.... third-tiers..... are discounted to the point of being absurd. Her comment that fundamentals do not move the roaches is accurate, and it's what's driving lots of us looney. However, what bugs me??.... the assumption, the dogmatic belief, that it will always be so. We have an incredible knowledge under belt with respect to biologicals as products or a guide to chemical intervention. We have gobs of products moving into and through the clinic. We have business plans that are still alive and that fit well with changes that are heading to the pharma industry. There is no reason, IMO, that one should view pre-1992 market caps as inflated. The good companies have been wildly successful. There were just tons of dogs. One trouble.... we still have semi-scam companies that command decent market caps. The sector tolerates these companies, and analysts don't have the balls to label them as what they are. As a result, there's still some justifiable bad-mouthing of the sector to come. That ticks me off. Let's flush the bad managers and the money-plays without underlying fundamentals. Thanks, great article. Excellent commentary. However, I still feel that we are unjustifiably hindered by post-'92 dogma. Cheers! Rick