| To: Mark Adams who wrote (36) | 4/25/2001 3:35:27 PM | | From: scaram(o)uche | | | | Mark:
Thanks for bringing them forward in that fashion. In any event, coin is in pocket, slacks are at cleaners.
Garcia hasn't been at IBPI for quite some time, so I wouldn't worry about it. I met Ken Kelly a long time ago, when he was principal at a VC firm. Clever guy....... tried to get me to work for free, and it almost worked.
I haven't looked at them in years, since well before they went public. I used to call them "XOMA junior".
Seems like mucositis is a very good choice of target (you may want to peek at the INCR thread or at today's INCR news, but that's "if and wish" stuff)??
Price:book and price:cash are very low, and another friend was also just asking about them.
Nope, I don't know them. You are now our resident expert on the company.
Rick |
| | Ask Todd Smith | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: nigel bates who wrote (38) | 4/26/2001 1:28:35 PM | | From: scaram(o)uche | | | | Tough enough business, even when patients get what they're supposed to get.
Yeah, there was a clever turn in the middle of one sentence there, huh?
"Importantly, IntraBiotics said that Protegrin IB-367 Rinse did meet the secondary endpoint of reducing patients' peak pain by 19% for the intent-to-treat group (p<0.05) and by 21% in the smaller, properly treated group (p=0.13)."
"Intrabiotics said"???? This isn't a Reuter's rehash, Kelly. This is YOUR press release. |
| | Ask Todd Smith | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| 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 |
|
| |
