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: Art Vandelay AIA who wrote (2552)	4/28/1999 11:43:00 AM
From: Don Miller	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10280

ClearStation (the backward viewer) just recommended shorting SEPR. I do not agree, but you deserve knowledge of the information anyway. Don Quote: Subject: (ClearStation) Recommendation : SEPR (Short) by kensey Date: 28 Apr 1999 15:05:32 -0000 From: ClearBot@clearstation.com Reply-To: support@clearstation.com To: Subscribers of kensey's recommended list <kensey_subscribers@clearstation.com> ............. 'kensey' has recommended SEPR (Short) 'kensey' said: One Two Punch. MACD red (downtrend) and Stochastic is overbought (a short term bounce within the context of that downtrend). Similar to AMGN short yesterday but a little bit more of a pronounced downtrend. Sepracor (SEPR) has been MACD red for about a month. Stochastic is overbought which indicates that relative to where prices have been navigating in the recent past, prices here are extended to an unsustainable level, starting to form a cup, and about to head lower. The situation is similar to the beginning of April when and where prices bounced higher off an intermediate low of 110 to navigate to 120. Prices then formed a cup. Then the next leg of the downtrend resumed and prices where taken down to the 80 dollar a share level. Prices then bounced back up to 100 wher they now sit. Yet another cup, perhaps another leg down. The basic gist is that stochastic is a short term indicator while MACD is a longer term indicator. MACD indicates vertical direction over a longer period of time. MACD is deemed a stronger indication as to the direction of prices than stochastic. So the action described by stochastic is a warble within the confines of something stronger and more persistent and of greater weight. A stop loss would be placed at 102. That is, if prices don't head in the direction of the trade (down) the position is closed out. One caveat is the very high level of selling that occurred in the leg down from 110 to 80 - this can indicate exhaustion of the downtrend and foreshadow a reversal where prices start to trend higher. Exhaustion selling means that 'everyone who has wanted to sell has sold'. Or, the stock has been sold out to the extent that there is no one left to sell who wants to sell. Sellers have left the train. Another stock in the wilting biotech group that is in a similar configuration to Sepracor and Amgen is Biogen (BGEN). kensey See the annotated graph of this recommendation at: clearstation.com +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Recommend emails are a powerful way to get investment tips as they happen from the ClearStation community. If you would like to UNSUBSCRIBE, go to clearstation.com Copyright (c) 1998. ClearStation, Inc. All rights reserved. ClearStation is neither an investment advisory service nor an investment advisor and does not purport to tell or suggest which securities Members should buy or sell for themselves. Members should always check with their licensed financial advisor and their tax advisor to determine the suitability of any investment.

To: Art Vandelay AIA who wrote (2552)	4/28/1999 11:54:00 AM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10280

A doctor friend of mine told me he heard on the news about a new drug being developed, which attacks allergies via the IgE (?) system. If successful, this would put a huge dent into the whole antihistamine market, and SEPR. Our only refuge then would be for the FDA to make Claritin, Allegra, et al OTC drugs, which I have been assuming will happen sometime sooner or later. Tom

To: Art Vandelay AIA who wrote (2552)	4/28/1999 1:21:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 10280

Art, I agree with you on antihistamines. One cautionary note is that once the Claritin generic is available sometime after 2004, there will certainly be some price pressure on all the non-generics. BTW, Zyrtec patent expires in 2002, so we could see some pressure earlier. On the plus side, however, there is Nori. People seem to be assuming that no news is bad news, and in biotech land that is generally true. However, in pharma land the rules are different, and publicity about Nori is governed by J&J, not SEPR. I have no idea what the results of the studies they are running are, but even if they were spectacular we would still likely hear nothing for now. Remember this is a 50:50 deal, and so if the drug lives up to its billing from before the news blackout happened, Nori would likely be the dominant drug in SEPR's early portfolio. From the Morgan Stanley report it seems that a Nori launch is now scheduled for the end of 2002 because SEPR is running animal carcinogenicity studies: Additionally, Sepracor is conduction carcinogenicity studies in animals. When broken down in the body, not all Hismal is converted into the active metabolite, norastemizole. Therefore, when giving equivalent norastemizole doses directly, the body is actually exposed to increased levels of the metabolite. Because of this effect, the Hisminal carcinogenicity data cannot be bridged to the norastemizole trial. Conducting these studies will delay the launch of norastemizole to late 2001 from early 2001, by our estimates. This reduces revenues for the product in that year to approximately $20 million from $200 million. These studies do not represent a risk to the timeline of other products as the company has already identified the compounds for which the data will be required (formoterol, oxybutynin, norcisapride, etc.) and for which it will not (fluoxetine, ketoprofin, doxazosin). I think the weakness we are encountering is partly the result of analysts catching up with SEPR's more aggressive development strategy. As the models now show bigger losses in earlier years, offset by bigger profits in later years, anyone who is skeptical or (equivalently) uses a very high discount rate will award SEPR a lower present value. Personally I have enough confidence in SEPR management to believe that they wouldn't be undertaking the new projects if they weren't very confidence they would be value-adding, and increase SEPR's PV. Peter