Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Agree that there would likely be a short term boost - because anyone and everyone will get on the market and be able to charge through the roof (e.g. SRPT). But that brings medical cost controls all the sooner - and to all players. I.e. the boost will be temporary, then we hit massive implosion as the country realizes we're paying a fortune and 70% of the new drugs are actually worse than useless. (that said, as I noted earlier, it might be best overall if we went back to 50's standards in order to reach sanity again the quickest. But from about year 3 or 4 I'd expect the market to be largely unplayable - and with a looming disaster)

Note: I believe the difference in perspectives here is that your investment style is to try to anticipate the buzz. I have no inherent objection to this, but think it is ultimately very bad for the market and very bad for the country to suppose this ends well if the focus moves from science to buzz (i.e. marketing and politics). (Note that I have been surprised to watch multiple biotech investors morph from a science focus to a buzz focus during the big boom.)

My investment approach really hasn't changed that much. It still consists of focusing on companies doing novel work that are priced reasonably where I think the upside potential far outweighs the downside. Yes, I still almost always avoid Phase 3 binary events and regulatory decisions and focus on much earlier-stage events (Phase 1, Phase 2 read-outs, partnership announcements, etc.), which are generally much lower hanging fruit. My focus is not on "buzz" from a marketing and politics standpoint but rather the "buzz" that early stage data against a novel target may generate. Agree we have been talking about a different type of buzz (more macro type of buzz), and just talking in general about how I think about this type of buzz but I'm much more focused on buzz that may be generated from individual companies (more micro focus) than broader themes related to marketing or politics.