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 : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (6713)	6/8/1999 3:11:00 PM
From: biowa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

Peter, >>Bottom line here is that I think they at very least have a good niche drug, which in this market means>$100m.<< >>My sense is that if they undercut Claritin/Claritin II in price they will have enough time to establish a decent drug before the generics kick in.<< Once again with my caveat: "I like SEPR." But... A niche drug in an already filled therapeutic class, means you are really investing in the marketing partner IMO, because the science hasn't added alot of value. SEPR is the development partner. Throwing all the chiral technology at this product IMO should give you a premium-priced product (or one that grows market or gobbles up market share). If you have to undercut price, once again, what has the technology added? On basic biology, ICE's should have advantages, and I believe in that (I was involved in a chiral start-up back at the beginning of this decade). The skeptic in me, though, says that one of these pdts has to be more than a "me-too" to validate that assumption. I want them to do so, but don't feel that they have. That said, the short-term valuation issue may not be the ultimate scientific validity of the approach. BTW, I hold no position in SEPR, long or short, nor am I'm involved in trading it. I like this debate though, especially since VDXXX is long(er) SEPR. biowa