No. of Recommendations: 0
On second thought, perhaps waiting for the next issue would be cheating those who purchased the current issue. I will put together a rebuttal, come up with some thread topics on numerical criteria and try to lure some commentary and input from other newsgroups.

Hopefully, this will result in an evlution of the criteria and then I can post revised numbers.

Although the "scientific journal" critique method is to profer only negative comments, was anything laudable? Take the perspective of an investor new to biotech. He or she has talking heads on ever side and sees ticker symbols on CNBC. Then they see a stock chart showing 200% gain in three months. They know nothing about the science, FDA process, etc. They want to be able to invest in biotech but are too frightened because its "complicated."

From that perspective, do you think the approach has merit in that it a) identifies possible problems with the company they just saw on CNBC (say the low # of candidates in clin trials for HGSI) or b) shows that some companies may be undervalued due to temporary setbacks or bad information (for instance Chiron)?

I am looking forward to your comments on the next portion of the report.

thanks again,
Greg
Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement