To: dalroi who wrote (40) | 5/30/2001 1:40:40 PM | From: scaram(o)uche | | | 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 |
| Ask Todd Smith | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (41) | 5/30/2001 1:48:21 PM | From: scaram(o)uche | | | 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. |
| Ask Todd Smith | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (42) | 1/5/2002 11:34:35 AM | From: scaram(o)uche | | | 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? |
| Ask Todd Smith | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (43) | 2/23/2002 5:12:49 PM | From: scaram(o)uche | | | 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. |
| Ask Todd Smith | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
To: scaram(o)uche who started this subject | 3/9/2002 12:26:52 PM | From: scaram(o)uche | | | 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. |
| Ask Todd Smith | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |