SI
SI
discoversearch

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.

   PastimesAsk Todd Smith


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: dalroi who wrote (40)5/30/2001 1:40:40 PM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 53
 
chuckle.......

I was looking around for some diversification today, and..... shucks!.... look at what I found!

messages.yahoo.com

Re: crystal
by: Aurileano
05/30/01 01:25 pm EDT
Msg: 26970 of 26970

green_eyed_tim:

Today, you're a guru.

Look up the word hubris.

In this sector, if you possess it, short or long, you will be dead meat.

Kindly advice from an old-timer who, when there, did that.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 26969 by green_eyed_tim

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (41)5/30/2001 1:48:21 PM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 53
 
Wonder if the contributors to the SI KLIC thread know that there's likely some "congrats, back-slapping" cross-complimenting between the Yahoo and SI threads?

For those who don't know the MO......

Well beyond the point where the claim was made that such behavior had halted, there were posts at SI (ARIA thread) by Scott/Ron/Courtney/r.Peter/Wesley/etc. heaping praise on Aurileano at Yahoo and vice versa.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (42)1/5/2002 11:34:35 AM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 53
 
More fun!

Was going through the early posts to the NBIX thread, and found another piece of Ron/Scott et al. trivia, with an early slip pointed to by H of LGND. At this point, we (there were three SI biofreaks who were following the hilarity, who know the entire story) had already clued in "Squetch" who, I guess, had clued in Bernie. H of LGND was running around making outrageous associations and, between the association lines, accusations. I believe that he eventually got it.

DOCU.......

Message 3546078
Message 3545809
Message 3462503
Message 566926

To:GARY P GROBBEL who wrote (69)
From: r. peter Dale Wednesday, Dec 18, 1996 4:28 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 509

Thanks for the update Gary. I have a question that you may find trite but: regardless of the pending contract, do any of your technical indicators suggest that today may have been a selling climax - the volume was somewhat up and the bid/ask went down to 13/16 - 29/32. At end of the day the bid ticked up to 7/8 and the stock closed at 29/32, the ask. The closing action is a turnaround in the pattern that was occurring during many previous sessions. Again, I know this is the sort of trading trivia that can drive alot of professionals bananas but, since the selling had become so irrational in DOCU, I thought it may be interesting to spot an equally irrational change in direction. Ron.

What's your opinion of Streetsmart?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (43)2/23/2002 5:12:49 PM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 53
 
doing some research, and ran accross stuff that I may not have parked before.......

Message 12946498

To:
From: scott_jiminez Wednesday, Feb 23, 2000 5:16 AM
View Replies (2) | Respond to of 5737

Not to press the point too far - which, of course I'll now proceed to do - but a perspective on the 'inevitable biotech crash' mindset was just presented to me in another context. The following refers to my statement about the semiconductor cycle in post 680.
On the Kulicke and Soffa thread, Gottfried just posted an update to his graphs showing, in effect, the strength of the semiconductor industry. Here is one of those graphs geocities.com Hmmmm. Let's see, cycle peaked in ~Oct.-Jan, 1995-96, ~Oct.-Dec., 1997, .....Oct.-Jan., 2000???? Guess what, ain't gonna happen - unless people stop using cell phones, stop using the internet, stop using chips in every conceivable place. Ain't gonna happen. There is a high probability the premise of the frequency of the cycle is flawed and -despite the strongly compelling 'evidence' of the two year cycle - it is much more likely to be 3-5 years.

Thus, when asked this past September, 'Why should this cycle be any different?', the correct answer would have addressed the premise of the frequency of the cyclicity and not to attempt to conjure reasons for a 'difference'.

Biotech may very well crash and burn. But there is no inevitability. Just as the demand for chips has exceeded all expectations, perceptions of the biotech sector may be undergoing a huge and positive shift (witness the spate of secondary offerings - unthinkable just six months ago) that may sustain significantly higher valuations for an extended period.

And, of course, I could be *WRONG* as well.

Message 13030939

To:
From: scott_jiminez Thursday, Mar 2, 2000 10:04 PM
Respond to of 1330

<<ARIAD...at $200 appears correct...>>
Superficially that appears to be an absurd statement.

But then you look at the years of no institutional interest, zero venture capital inflow, zip valuation given to platforms and/or bench science...and you come to the unmistakable conclusion that ARIA probably should have been trading in the $10 - 20 range at the beginning of the biotech rally if all of these negatives weren't pummeling the stock until last fall.

But with the additional factors of the god awful convertible, and the diffuse research direction, etc., the stock price was just pounded to nothing.

Thus this huge run is distorted by the fact that last fall the stock had valued the company as essentially worthless. While we may or may not see $200, do not be surprised if ARIA goes substantially higher. Remember (as noted by Berger) Ariad's valuation is JUST BEGINNING to reach the LOWER REALM of its similarly positioned peers.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: scaram(o)uche who started this subject3/9/2002 12:26:52 PM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 53
 
from the valuation thread......

To:Richard Harmon who wrote (5696)
From: Richard Harmon Thursday, Feb 14, 2002 1:38 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 5857

For those who might like a leveraged, quiet, long-term play.....
Play on bioterror, where the "trickle" element should be here to stay........

NBSC reported their fourth quarter yesterday, the first without DGI Biotechnologies in their pants.

Strong sales and earnings growth, a PE < 7, projecting the quarter forward.

41% margin on (again projecting the quarter forward) annualized sales of 69M. That's 29M for a company with a market cap of 46M. And, while they'll be diluted big time on the next round of financing (if and when), they own 47% of DGI.........

dgibt.com


Would someone please take a Devil's Advocate position and tell me/us why this chart will not continue to look good? TIA.

siliconinvestor.com

I own shares of NBSC. For all you know, I may be trying to promote a rally that I could sell and/or short into.

Roach Motel. Extremely illiquid. Sudden downside could be unrelated to business fundamentals. The latest SEC filing shows an insider sell. An insider has a record of tacky selling into a rally. I may, on occasion, not brush my teeth before going to bed (yech!). I prefer liquidity. At any time, an earthquake might hit Edison, New Jersey. This post may generate interest in the stock at the open Monday morning, and anyone buying at that point could be -- 20:20 hindsight in a year -- an idiot.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (45)4/29/2002 8:09:30 PM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 53
 
messages.yahoo.com

messages.yahoo.com

messages.yahoo.com

etc., etc.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: scaram(o)uche who started this subject8/15/2002 9:39:40 AM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 53
 
Based on this post.......

Message 17861311

I'm going to modify the portfolio "Ron - 3/14/00", shown below. Take photo now, if desired. We still won't be able to get a quote for CNSI/CeNeS with the SI portfolio manager, but we can get an accurate value for the portfolio, overall.

For those who do not remember, the portfolio was assembled to reflect Ron Hellendall's preferences as expressed in this post.........

Message 13196846

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (47)8/15/2002 9:44:56 AM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 53
 
Actually, there's no need to take a photo. I'll just leave the original 3200 shares of CNSI as shown, and add the CeNeS certificates at a ratio of 2.3472 to one. Going to make the change now........

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (48)8/15/2002 10:02:44 AM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 53
 
Change made. Total value of the portfolio is now about $5871, down approximately 89% to date.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (49)12/13/2002 7:58:11 PM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 53
 
"ron - 3/14/00" portfolio currently down 90.1%. (eom)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10