More, Actually Less, in Genomics :: Michael Shulman's Biotech Blitz

More, Actually Less, in Genomics

I will never shake the memory of the second plane hitting the Twin Towers, the collapses of the buildings, the long lines of volunteer health professionals waiting outside of hospitals for survivors that did not survive, the other New Yorkers waiting for firemen and policemen and wives and husbands and sons and daughters that did not come back home that night.

We must not forget them.

Now back to work: Last time I wrote that companies focusing on genomics are seen as being on the leading edge of drug development and could be next great frontier for speculative investors. In fact, too speculative -- gene therapy is a giant leap, trial results have not been better than mixed and there are better ways to make or lose money.

And that is the key: I like speculating as much as the next guy but in genomics I would stick with companies that already have real products and revenues, if not necessarily profits. Or I want companies doing the same with drugs aimed at patients with a specific genetic profile.

So today I am following up by saying do little if anything with the leading-edge guys and retreat into products, revenues and profits. Yes, I missed the run-up in RNAi stocks -- which, now that I am back from the beach and the D.C. Money Show, I will write about later this week (despite this being the week of Rosh Hashanah -- but there is no change in the fundamental prospects for RNAi companies. They are still very speculative. I feel the same way about genomics -- too much coming out of them is still hype and hope.

The best example of this is Human Genome Sciences (HGSI), a company whose building is visible from our offices in Maryland. Just read their company profile as it is posted on Yahoo.

"Human Genome Sciences, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical company with a focus on drug development in the United States. The company develops protein and antibody drugs to treat diseases, such as hepatitis C, lupus, anthrax disease, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and HIV/AIDS." Read anything about genes? How about their self-description on their website? "The mission of Human Genome Sciences is to discover, develop, manufacture and market innovative drugs that serve patients with unmet medical needs, with a primary focus on protein and antibody drugs."

My point is developing pure genetic therapies is very hard and problematic.

As I wrote last time, start your search with the equipment companies, then move on to testing outfits such as Cepheid (CPHD) or Applera (ABI) in addition to the companies mentioned before like Illumina (ILMN), Affymetrix (AFFX), Luminex (LMNX) and Sequenom (SQNM).

Next, RNA interference, RNAi, my great miss, and still not a good opportunity for investors? Say what? Jealous of folks who got into RNAi early Shulman?

Could be. But not anymore. I'm over it and on it.

Comments

Before you read the rest of this posting please take a moment in silence to honor our countrymen slaughtered six years ago on this day. I began work at ChangeWave on Sept. 10, 2001 and I was fortunate to be able to share and be comforted by the companionship of the people I work with there. I will never shake the memory of the second plane hitting the Twin Towers, the collapses of the buildings, the long lines of volunteer health professionals waiting outside of hospitals for survivors that did not survive, the other New Yorkers waiting for firemen and policemen and wives and husbands and sons and daughters that did not come back home that night. We must not forget them. Now back to work: Last time I wrote that companies focusing on genomics are seen as being on the leading edge of drug development and could be next great frontier for speculative investors. In fact, too speculative -- gene therapy is a giant leap, trial results have not been better than mixed and there are better ways to make or lose money. And that is the key: I like speculating as much as the next guy but in genomics I would stick with companies that already have real products and revenues, if not necessarily profits. Or I want companies doing the same with drugs aimed at patients with a specific genetic profile. So today I am following up by saying do little if anything with the leading-edge guys and retreat into products, revenues and profits. Yes, I missed the run-up in RNAi stocks -- which, now that I am back from the beach and the D.C. Money Show, I will write about later this week (despite this being the week of Rosh Hashanah -- but there is no change in the fundamental prospects for RNAi companies. They are still very speculative. I feel the same way about genomics -- too much coming out of them is still hype and hope. The best example of this is Human Genome Sciences (HGSI), a company whose building is visible from our offices in Maryland. Just read their company profile as it is posted on Yahoo. "Human Genome Sciences, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical company with a focus on drug development in the United States. The company develops protein and antibody drugs to treat diseases, such as hepatitis C, lupus, anthrax disease, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and HIV/AIDS." Read anything about genes? How about their self-description on their website? "The mission of Human Genome Sciences is to discover, develop, manufacture and market innovative drugs that serve patients with unmet medical needs, with a primary focus on protein and antibody drugs." My point is developing pure genetic therapies is very hard and problematic. As I wrote last time, start your search with the equipment companies, then move on to testing outfits such as Cepheid (CPHD) or Applera (ABI) in addition to the companies mentioned before like Illumina (ILMN), Affymetrix (AFFX), Luminex (LMNX) and Sequenom (SQNM). Next, RNA interference, RNAi, my great miss, and still not a good opportunity for investors? Say what? Jealous of folks who got into RNAi early Shulman? Could be. But not anymore. I'm over it and on it.