Seeking Alpha

Alex Daley's  Instablog

Alex Daley
Send Message
Alex Daley is the senior editor of Casey’s Extraordinary Technology. In his varied career, he’s worked as a senior research executive, a software developer, project manager, senior IT executive, and technology marketer. He’s a technologist who has collaborated on the development of... More
My company:
Casey Research
  • Biometrics – Sci-Fi Becomes Reality

    For many years technology prognosticators have warned about the coming onslaught of “biometrics”: a fingerprint instead of one’s credit card at the ATM to draw cash, or a retinal scan at the border to verify one’s identity against one’s passport. Yet with decades of research and development behind the technologies, very few widespread uses of biometrics have found their way into our lives.

    That is starting to change, however – and if the latest technology is any indication, you can probably expect a lot more biometrics in your life real soon.

    When we think of technology, we often dream of the whiz-bang new capabilities it has brought to our lives, from ATMs to DVRs to smartphones. For a technology to go mainstream, first and foremost it generally has to also reduce someone’s “pain” – whether that be saving businesses money, or allowing an individual to conveniently catch his or her favorite program.

    Ultimately, it usually comes down to the end user of a piece of technology who has to like the outcome before it will really catch on in a big way. Just because banks would prefer to save money with ATMs doesn’t mean customers will prefer them over live tellers. But put them in places where one can’t put a bank – like convenience stores and malls – and suddenly they are beneficial to both parties. That’s a recipe for widespread proliferation.

    This is the problem that biometrics has suffered for decades: End users not only usually get little to no benefit, but they incur a significant perceived (and possibly actual) risk by using the system and giving up a digital copy of this highly personal identifiable information.

    Give a criminal a record of your fingerprint, and he will find a way to submit that record to the system without actually needing your finger. Advances both in technology, as well as in security practices, have made that scenario less likely. Connections between sensors and computers can be made virtually hack-proof using secure communications techniques that are resistant to spoofing and man-in-the-middle attacks. Data is encrypted from end to end. Much more thought is put into security of new technology now than a decade ago, thanks to the high-profile breaches we have all become so accustomed to hearing about these days.

    But even if biometric systems have become relatively secure, up to this point they have been generally unreliable. For many decades, the primary pursuits of biometric researchers have been the two ends of the spectrum, from the seemingly simplest and most readily available – the fingerprint – to the figurative holy grail – the retina scan. Both have suffered from major, insurmountable problems.

    Fingerprints, despite the positive reputation gained from television crime dramas, are simply not that unique. The systems used to measure them digitally are cheap and widely available now. However, they have a tendency to achieve large error rates when matching against large databases of samples. This is because they are inherently imprecise, sampling just a few spots. If they are to be made more precise, the cost suddenly becomes relatively impractical for the limited improvement in match rates. Fingerprints just make bad identifiers. The machines also usually require you to physically touch the sensor, which can make them less durable and subject to breakage.

    We’ve all seen the movie scenes where retinal scans are much more precise. They look at the pattern of tissue in the eyes which is incredibly unique, and doesn’t suffer from the precision problems that fingerprints have been long known to have. It also doesn’t require a user to touch the actual sensor, since it uses light to take its measurements. That means less wear and tear and more reliability. But it also requires the user to keep the eyeball relatively still (a very hard thing for some people to do), and usually to put one’s head into a machine that makes it easier for the hardware to see and recognize the eyeball.

    In one word: uncomfortable.

    Researchers have posited that technology could be developed to make retinal scans work from across the room – in a matter of milliseconds – just by having a user look at a focal point (like a camera lens at the DMV). However, the reality has proven more complicated than the theory (as it usually does), and no working system like that has ever been demonstrated to work in the field, at a low cost, and be mass producible.

    That’s where the local hospital comes in – if you live in New York City, that is. The NYU Langone Medical Center has recently launched a new biometrics-based registration system for patients. At check-in to the medical center, one is asked to present a hand for a quick palm scan.

    The system they’ve employed, provided by HT Systems, uses infrared light to read the pattern of veins in a palm. The result is an image like this one:

    It might not look like much, but this image of the blood-flow pattern within a hand has proven about 100 times more reliable than fingerprints, according to the testing done by NYU Langone prior to choosing the system. It is less intimidating than a retinal scan, much cheaper to implement, and altogether more practical.

    The vein pattern is matched up against the medical records database, and if a patient already has a record he is checked in immediately, with no forms to fill out. The electronic health record (which launched in tandem with the biometric check-in system) is then accessible to the doctors and nurses who need it throughout the hospital system.  

    The impetus behind the system from NYU’s perspective was to avoid costly mistakes when registering patients. Their database has over 125,000 records with matching names. When using forms, mistakes happen where the wrong patient is checked in, and the wrong medical records are presented to the doctors and nurses. In the best of scenarios, this causes confusion and delay. In the worst-case situation, serious injury or death can result when the wrong medication is given or similar mix-ups occur. Such errors bring serious liability to the hospital, so their motivation is obvious for wanting a system that can potentially reduce human error, save time, and reduce liability.

    But what about patients? Have they reacted well to the system, which has been in use for just over a week now?

    Despite what one may at first think, patients have apparently taken to the system with very little pushback. The reason most cited is that elderly patients especially find it much easier than trying to read and fill out forms every time they arrive. Instead, one just presents a palm and is ready to go.

    A handful of patients each day have refused to use the system, but according to NYU representatives the primary concern is not privacy but “radiation.” The system employs infrared light to do its scanning, not x-rays or other dangerous forms of radiation, so at least those concerns are unwarranted.

    In press releases and interviews online, the representatives from NYU Langone insist the system is secure. And one can imagine few instances where an attacker, other than a malicious one intent on providing incorrect data to the system, would have a desire to access or manipulate the data. The palmprint alone is not sufficient to access any medical records. That still requires secure login by hospital staff. It is only a record locator at this point.

    However, if the same technology is eventually employed by banks or credit card companies – possibly as a better alternative to ATM PIN codes – suddenly the data output by these systems will be much more valuable. We can only hope that hospitals, banks, and the companies who help them implement these systems use best practices for security and stick to multifactor authentication (e.g., something you have, and something you know) and secure communications. Even then – as recent incidents with hacked credit card terminals at Aldi, Michaels, and other national chains have proven – every complex system is only as secure as its weakest point. In this case, we may be reliant on hospitals to secure our data – something they have proven to not do well so far, with hospitals around the country guilty of losing patient records from clinical trials, epidemiology research studies, and various other programs.

    The palm-scan technology has almost all the earmarks of a potentially mainstream technology. The systems are cheap to produce, reliable, and accurate. They save their buyers money by reducing complex mistakes or fraud. And hospital patients are – so far – seeing a direct benefit from the use of the system. One question now remains: If the biometric onslaught is finally about to begin, how will it affect our security? Only time will tell.

    For now, we welcome the convenience of the new technology at the doctor’s office, but will remain skeptical of using it beyond that. We certainly don’t intend to give it up at the local grocery store to pay for the junk food that is going to send us to the hospital with a heart attack soon enough...

    [Did you know that technology has become the single largest sector of the American economy? Even so, investing wisely in tech stocks isn’t easy. That’s why Casey Research hired a high-tech mercenary (Alex Daley) to run their technology letter - Casey Extraordinary Technology. Read on to learn more about Alex’s incredible background in high-tech and how you can get a risk-free, three-month trial subscription to his technology investment newsletter, Casey Extraordinary Technology.]

    Jul 06 12:24 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Where Individual Investors Can Beat the Big Boys

    Wouldn’t it be great if there were a sector where you have the edge over the Goldman Sachs of the world? 

    A market where small players can outmaneuver the big guys – and where having knowledge of that market gives you a distinct advantage over day traders?

    Such a market exists - biotechnology.  Small and mid-cap biotech firms don’t get a lot of close coverage by analysts, so with the right expertise it’s possible to beat the masses to the early profits.

    Our colleague, Alex Daley, the chief technology strategist for Casey Research and senior editor for Casey’s Extraordinary Technology, recently sat down with The Daily Crux to reveal valuable insights on investing in this explosive sector:

    • Why biotech is offering hope to millions of chronically ill people – and serious profits for bold investors

    • Why nine out of 10 biotech therapies are destined for the trash heap – and how to improve your odds of investing in the winners

    • Key factors you need to know when evaluating biotech stocks

    • …and much more.

    When Alex talks technology, smart investors listen – he’s worked with Microsoft, Facebook, MySpace and many other household-name tech firms, as well as renowned research universities like MIT and Harvard.

    He’s also been a featured guest on CNN, CNBC, BBC and other major media.

    So grab a cup of coffee and discover some of Alex’s strategies for uncovering profitable biotech stocks.


    The Daily Crux Sunday Interview

    How to profit from the most
    explosive sector in the world…

    The Daily Crux: Alex, for readers who aren't familiar with your letter, Casey's Extraordinary Technology, can you touch on what you do?

    Alex Daley: Well, like the name says, we cater to extraordinary technology. We're focused across the tech sector, on everything from semiconductors, to internet stocks, to biotechnology, across the globe from the U.S. to China, India, and other markets.

    We're opportunistic investors. We're looking for early- to mid-stage, high-growth technology companies... companies that can post 40%, 50%, 100%, or 200% revenue growth, year over year. The global macroeconomic situation is of far less concern to companies like this... It often presents them with unique opportunities, because they are generally reinventing a market or creating an entirely new one.

    Crux: We understand you're especially bullish on biotech right now. Why is that?

    Daley: There are several reasons we like biotechnology right now.

    Number one, the industry is maturing. Over the last decade - since the completion of the human genome project in the year 2000 - our understanding of genetics and our ability to manipulate and work with genetics has increased exponentially. We are on the verge of what I would call a revolution in medicine.

    There will be a change over the next decade or so where the majority of true blockbuster drugs on the market will be biologically based. They will be large-molecule, protein-centric, or even genetic therapies, whereas today the pharmaceuticals industry is dominated by small molecule chemicals... The drugs we're used to seeing today range from statins to Viagra to NSAIDs.

    These new drugs are inherently different. They are targeting the biological processes that go on within our body and attempting to manipulate or stop those processes, using the same basic building blocks that underpin biology itself - proteins are the stuff life is made of.

    So there's the potential to treat a whole range of diseases where we currently only treat the symptoms or can't treat at all. There is truly a revolution going on in biotechnology right now. For the first time, the majority of new drug candidates are seeking FDA approval are now biotech.

    Where we are right now with biotech is similar to where we were in the 1950s and 60s with basic pharmaceuticals - there were huge advancements made in drugs during that period which helped extend life expectancy and improve quality of life for hundreds of millions of people. We believe the next 20 years will be more revolutionary for global health than that 20-year period.

    Another reason is demographics, which are working in the favor of investing in health care in general, and biotech specifically. Simply put, the world's population is aging. This is not a uniquely U.S. problem of the Baby Boomers aging and spending an increasingly large amount of their money on health care, more and more of GDP being devoted to keeping people healthy, or however you want to look at it.

    This also includes Japan... much of the European Union... even India and China are having similar demographic shifts. In fact, it looks like India may be first. They have the largest aging population out there. Japan will follow, then the U.S., China, and Europe, shortly thereafter.

    Within the next 25 years, more than 30% of many populations across the world will be seniors... and the basic economics of being a senior is that an increasingly large percentage of personal spending goes towards medical care. So that works in favor, of course, of continued investment within the medical field.

    This also extends to the growing middle class around the developing world. From Brazil to China to India to Russia, a huge new middle class is emerging globally that will demand better healthcare... or any at all, as many of the world's poor have near zero modern care available to them today.

    The reason we like biotechnology companies over hospitals and things like that, is it's a sector that is information-driven. So the margins for successful companies are potentially huge. We're not talking about companies with huge expenses in real estate and personnel that scale inline with revenue and are always going to have them operating at razor-thin margins. Biotechnology companies tend to have large upfront costs in research and development, but once in market, their costs can grow much more slowly than revenue and profitability can benefit from economies of scale.

    What we're really looking at is a vibrant global marketplace where there's demand for anybody who can cure an incurable disease or treat something that creates a very low quality of life. If a company can raise the quality of life for any group out there in the world, no matter the demographics, there's a market for that. Add in the current changes in world demographics, there's an incredibly large market for a number of these different therapies.

    Biotech is also one of the few sectors left out there where a small individual investor can still have a decided advantage over institutional investors.

    A lot of the companies tend to be small to mid-cap stocks. They don't have a lot of close coverage by analysts, so it's possible to obtain a great information advantage by taking the time to dig deep into the clinical research, understanding the value of the drug or treatment, and really getting to know the management team and how well they grasp the market.

    It's a really interesting funding environment as well. In addition to there being numerous companies with huge potential but not a lot of coverage yet, you also have companies that need to raise large amounts of capital... So this is one of the few sectors left in the U.S. that really has the incentive at the very early stages to turn to public markets. And there are a couple reasons why they've turned to public markets in particular, whereas many other companies would stay with venture capital or private funding.

    First is the size, as I just mentioned... the amounts of money they have to raise. It's not uncommon for it to require anywhere between $500 million to $1 billion in order to bring a new drug to market. This is due to the huge regulatory hurdles these companies face globally, as well as the huge cost of being able to build the research pipeline necessary to build on that first success.

    There are very few biotech companies that would actually be able to produce a good return for investors off a single drug. That requires a drug of blockbuster proportions... And the fact is, maybe one in 200 or 300 drugs ever actually becomes a true blockbuster with billion-dollar per year sales.

    On the other hand, if a company can find a treatment that addresses multiple markets, or find multiple treatments to address multiple markets, then it's got the potential to make an incredible return for investors and become the next Genentech or Amgen. That's really what most of these companies starting with a single drug are aiming to do. But in order to raise that kind of money - $500 million or $1 billion over the course of a couple years' time - the public market is really the only place to go. The scale is simply too large for most venture investors.

    Second is risk. It's increasingly being recognized that the rate at which these drugs are approved is dropping. It's dropped from where about one in seven therapies submitted to the FDA make it to approval in the U.S., down to about one in 10, as of the end of 2010. You're in a position where there are these billion-dollar gauntlets to get through, yet just one out of every 10 of those is actually going to make a drug that gets marketing approval. As a result, venture investors, even large bio-firms, are looking to spread the risk as best they can, across as many different therapies as possible. In order to do that, you need a lot more investors at the table.

    So you have companies like Eli Lilly that recently announced that it was going to be inviting venture capital investors into its own internal research and development process. This means they're willing to give a share of future drug benefits from the items currently in R&D to external investors, because that will enable them to spread their capital across a much larger number of therapies. So you're seeing companies begin to bring in 30%, 50%, or even 80% external investment into the R&D process.

    In the same way, companies on the public exchanges are able to spread that risk across a larger number of investors, which in turn gives those investors a chance to invest in a large number of therapies, and hopefully increase their chances of finding that one blockbuster drug - the one return that will make up for a number of potential losses.

    Crux: What do you look for when selecting biotech stocks with huge potential?

    Daley: That's really a question of investing style and what kind of companies best match that risk tolerance and reward threshold. There are hundreds of public biotech companies and thousands of private ones... So there's a huge number of companies that an investor can choose to put his or her money behind.

    What we look for in particular to make a great biotech stock for our portfolio is a company that's going to give us a huge potential return, where the risk-to-reward ratio is going to be tipped so heavily toward the reward side that potential returns will more than make up for the risk that comes with it.

    When it comes to companies with single therapies, we don't like to dive into early-stage companies, where the therapies haven't even been tried. We like to watch these companies as they move through the clinical trial gauntlet and get through what's referred to as Phase 1 clinical trials.

    These are really early stage, small-group trials to ensure a particular therapy isn't accidentally killing people, doesn't have some horrific side effect, and generally looks to be effective. Many therapies can look effective in a laboratory, but when you actually try to use these treatments on human beings, any number of potential problems can occur.

    Instead, we generally like to look for mid-stage companies that are approaching or exiting Phase 2, and are starting to ramp up the size and scale of their trials. In these cases there's often some confidence that the therapy could in fact be a blockbuster. At that point, we work very closely with the companies to understand the technology and its long-term implications.

    So those are the kinds of companies we look for when we're looking at companies that have a single therapy... a potential, brand-new biotech company with hopefully something a little more than a one-hit wonder... a real blockbuster.

    I'll give you a company that was in the news recently that falls in this category. A company IPO'd about this time last year called Aveo Pharmaceuticals. AVEO is its ticker symbol.

    The company was trading as low as $6 about this time last year, but has recently jumped by over 100%. The reason Aveo is so interesting is that it has a potential treatment for cancer that looks to be far less toxic and far more effective than traditional chemotherapy. Even more interesting about Aveo is its potential therapy targets a specific pathway that's common in a number of different types of cancer.

    Instead of just zapping a tumor through radiation, it's working at a genetic level, and disrupting a core function of the cancer cell. So if this technique works, it will potentially work not just for one specific type of cancer, but for a number of them.

    The company is progressing very quickly through its clinical trial process, and it's been showing very positive results. Investors have been piling into the stock and we're seeing more institutional buying, as it becomes clear they have a potential blockbuster set of drugs.

    So this is a good example of the type of company you want to look for in this area... You're looking for a therapy with broad implications and applications, and a company that has some proven results, the lack of side effects, the lack of toxicity, etc.

    Our portfolio has another company in a very similar space, just a few months behind AVEO in terms of proof and timing. However, we've looked at the data and their particular approach looks to be more effective and more broadly applicable. I can't give you the name of that stock just now, as it is a new pick for our subscribers, but it is one we are excited about on both the short- and long-term horizons.

    These kinds of companies are basically a "swing for the fences" type of investment... they're a home run or a strike out. If you're going to invest this way, you really need to have a good technical understanding of which therapies are likely to be successful and which ones aren't, and there's always a large amount of risk in that.

    There's another way to approach the market, which is a little bit different but still involves individual stocks. This involves looking for companies that are enabling a new category of therapies. Not just an individual drug but an entirely new technique. There are a lot of new techniques in biotech these days as we get a better understanding of basic genetics and how we may be able to interfere with or manipulate the genetic process to benefit patients.

    One of the more promising areas - one that's gone through a large period of hype and has now reached its realism phase - is RNA interference, or RNAi. A few years back, everybody was talking about RNAi being the next big therapy. It had its moment in the sun where there were 100 different companies all working in RNAi - it went through the unrealistic hype phase and is now getting down to brass tacks with a handful of much more obvious front-runners much closer to putting real therapies out to market.

    After over a decade of progression from the lab to trials, today we're finally seeing real RNAi results in humans that allow us to treat certain genetic conditions and cure people of diseases that were otherwise completely untreatable prior to now. They are being successfully delivered, they are temporary and reversible unlike prior generations of genetic therapies that did not work nearly as well, and they are steadily marching toward market. But it's still not clear who the specific winners are going to be.

    We do have one company in our portfolio that we believe is going to be a major winner, and that has probably done more than any other to advance individual RNAi therapies and has really proven that they work in human beings.

    But what's more interesting is that company, as well as the overwhelming majority of other RNAi companies, licenses a platform from another company called Isis Pharmaceuticals. Isis provides the basic fundamental research tools these other biotechnology companies need to discover these potential RNA based treatments, yet it also has its own interesting long-term R&D pipeline.

    Even if Isis' own therapies don't pan out, they continue to be a main supplier for the RNAi space. So if virtually any of the other RNAi companies are successful, Isis has the patents and the technology to be able to benefit from that success.

    We really like these types of platform plays... companies where if even one out of 100 customers is able to turn out a blockbuster therapy, the company enabling their research and providing the intellectual property to allow them to bring this to market, will benefit through licensing, royalties, supplying equipment, and supplying research knowledge.

    Crux: That sounds very much like the idea of "picks and shovels" plays in the resource world... the idea that it's often more profitable to buy the companies that provide mining or drilling equipment and supplies than it is to buy the actual miners.

    Daley: It's precisely like that. Over the last few months, for example, many people have made a great deal of money investing in companies like National Oilwell Varco, which was a strong mid-cap pick in the energy sector that supplies drilling rigs. When exploration increases like it has recently, companies like this see a commensurate increase in business... but with absolutely none of the exploration risk.

    It's the same story in the biotech sector. If you can find a company that provides a base platform with these virtual "picks and shovels," as you said, you've found an interesting company that can benefit no matter which company is ultimately successful in the space, so long as the space itself is growing - and with RNAi, it most certainly holds that promise.

    Crux: Can you recommend some low-risk buying strategies for the sector?

    Daley: Well, the biotech sector is a bit different that other speculative sectors. Most speculative investors are used to working in thinly traded markets where there are few buyers, few sellers, and a very small piece of news can significantly move a stock.

    As U.S. stocks go, some biotechs are as thinly traded as they come. So one really bad piece of news can create a significant drop, or one really good piece of news can create very significant upside. It's not uncommon to see these stocks move 30% up or down in a week, or even in a day, and moves of 100% or more aren't out of the question, either.

    But you need to remember that these stocks are generally traded on the U.S. markets... so the volume on these stocks is significantly higher than when you're talking about the junior resource sector for example.

    We talked about Isis Pharmaceuticals earlier. Isis is nearly a $1 billion market cap company and its average volume for the past year is about 660,000 shares per day. So this is not an extremely thinly traded stock where you have to watch your buy and sell patterns. But of course it does make a lot of sense to protect yourself from wild movements by using limit orders, appropriate position sizing, and being sure not to dump every dime you have into one potential stock because you've been told, "Hey, they're going to cure cancer."

    Like I mentioned before, the reality with biotech is there's a one out of 10 chance that your company is going to make it to market. And even if it makes it to market with its therapy, you're still dependent on a number of things going right.

    You're dependent on the lawyers and CEO having negotiated a really good royalty and distribution agreement with a large pharmaceutical partner. If you're a small company and you're going into business with a Roche or a GlaxoSmithKline, you're working against an army of lawyers with decades of experience in creating royalty licensing agreements. Sure, there might be a billion-dollar agreement signed in front of you, but the milestones required to get there might be difficult.

    You also need to be confident the management team you've chosen has the wherewithal to negotiate a really good deal with the distribution partner. Or if they're going to go with their own - which is rare, but certainly a possibility for a company with a true blockbuster - you want to make sure management has the knowledge and experience to build that team and create that global distribution network.

    Beyond that, even if you have a drug on the market, there's no guarantee of profitability. Any number of things could go wrong. You could have unexpected side effects, for instance, that mire you in support or legal costs. Or you could simply have failure of management to run the company well.

    Many times you see companies that would be profitable if they just sold the drug or treatment they've developed. But instead they sink increasingly large amounts of capital back into R&D in order to find that next big therapy and often have little to show for it. These companies would likely be far more profitable if all they did was milk the one therapy they have in market and try to maximize shareholder value.

    So the idea is to find a company that's going to maximize shareholder value with a successful drug. You want to find a company that has the potential for these large upside returns based on profitability, not just gross revenue.

    As far as specific trading strategies, really it's about finding the right company, and following your basic buying and selling rules... just being smart about not letting market volatility affect the price at which you enter or exit.

    Crux: Valuing these early-stage biotech companies can be trickier than it is for the average operating company. How do you evaluate these stocks?

    Daley: There are a number of different frameworks we look at to value biotech companies. It all depends on whether they're a multi-therapy company, a single-therapy company, or a platform and tools provider.

    There's also the obvious exception of companies that are in less regulated spaces. For example, when we're going to evaluate a company that's doing genetic testing as opposed to genetic therapies, these tests don't have to go through the FDA for approval, and thus those companies have very different cost structures, and very different time-to-market considerations.

    Generally we look at the potential market size of the therapy in question and weigh that against the therapy's chances of success, which we try to handicap based on extensive data we've collected over the years.

    Success is largely dependent on things like study sizes, which therapeutic area it's in, potential competitors already in market and in the pipeline, and whether or not it's in an orphan market - where there are no current therapies for whatever disease they're targeting.

    What we're looking for is situations where the scales are tipped in our favor. To greatly simplify what typically takes us weeks to months of number crunching and interviews to assess - we're looking for that stock trading at a discount to the net present value of its future therapies, adjusted for risk.

    Crux: Sounds good. Any parting thoughts?

    Daley: Anyone who's thinking about investing in biotechnology needs to be aware that there are a lot of therapies that sound great on paper, but when you really dig into the science behind them, you find that companies have not established them as safe or effective, and it can take years, sometimes decades, to a move a therapy forward.

    Unless you have a couple PhDs under your belt - and sometimes even then - you generally need to look for advisors to provide you with some real understanding of the science and the likelihood that a treatment can make it to market before you invest.

    Also, spread your bets. It's not a sector that's well-suited for index investing, because such a large percentage of the companies won't succeed. When you buy an index, especially one that isn't market-cap weighted, you're getting those nine or more losers for every winner, and it's guaranteed to limit your returns. On the other hand, if you spread your bets across a number of smart speculations, you're much more likely to see significant returns, and still manage your risks effectively in what is otherwise a speculative market.

    Finally, it's important to remember this industry tends to move in fits and starts. Everybody talks about the potential of this or that treatment, of how every disease in the world is going to be cured within five years, etc. But then reality sets in.

    It's a very, very complicated business dealing with things we still don't understand completely. We're still discovering things about genetics today that are changing the basic models of how we think the human body works, how evolution works, and these kinds of things. It's sort of like trying to change the wheels on a train that's moving... It's complicated, and it can take a long time, if you're going to avoid disaster.

    That's why we try to focus on companies that are proving new science.

    The founder of one of our RNAi portfolio picks won the Nobel Prize for his work in 1993, and didn't found the company until almost another decade of research. It's now 2011 and they still have nothing to market yet. And they still probably have another three to five years to go, assuming no big bumps in the road. Talk about an industry that's slow burning. Can you imagine if it took a junior resource company 20 years to start pumping oil from a discovery deposit?

    The difference here is every one of these is a potential billion-dollar market. If this particular RNAi company is successful for instance, it could conceivably be the size of Amgen down the road. Isis, the "picks and shovels" company I mentioned earlier, has been public for two decades and it's only recently started to look like an interesting stock.

    So this industry moves a lot slower than many people realize. You can read all the Kurzweil books you want - and don't get me wrong, I love his stuff - but if there is such a thing as a singularity, it's probably about 1,000 years away, not 20.

    Crux: Thanks for talking with us, Alex.

    Daley: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

    *Editor’s Note:  For a limited time, you can access an exclusive report from Casey Research, The Three Best Biotech Stocks to Own in 2011, at zero risk.  To learn more, click here.

    Mar 29 4:48 PM | Link | Comment!
  • We Cannot Afford to Double Dip

    By Alex Daley, Senior Editor, Casey Research

    Talk of a double-dip recession is seemingly increasing these days. Home sales have dropped like a brick since the end of the special tax breaks for buyers. Weekly job reports are showing much larger rises in unemployment claims than previously expected by whoever it is that decides what exactly is expected – 427,000 new filings in just the last weekly report.

    The problem this time around, however, is not just the economy itself. The problem is that our supposed saviors are all out of tools to help the economy climb out of the deep, dark hole we now find it in. The tool belt of any monetary regime is limited to begin with. Nothing more than loosening up the debt purse strings with unrestrained interest rate policy and some additional lending from the central coffers to add to liquidity. These tools are the economic equivalent of performing reconstructive dentistry with a sledgehammer and monkey wrench, effective but not exactly precise.

    And as Goldman Sachs recently pointed out to a number of its clients, the world’s leading developed nations have all but exhausted the few tools available to them:

    Interest rates in the top 10 economic nations are hovering just above zero, and it’s not like they can go any lower than that, as much as banks would welcome having to pay back less than they borrow.   

    And government net lending has increased so dramatically that government debt is spiraling from out-of-control to just plain ridiculous. All at a time when revenues are dropping from the slowdown and creditors, having been burned a little by Greece and afraid of what’s to come with Spain, Italy, Ireland, California, New York, and others, are starting to raise red flags to the borrow-and-spend policies of our collective governing bodies. 

    For the first time in a long time, developed governments in Europe and the U.S. face the specter of sub-AAA credit ratings and rapidly rising costs of borrowing more (ratings that, frankly, had they been put in place by the inept agencies years ago when they were initially deserved may have had repercussions that would have helped us avoid many of today’s problems). Between rising borrowing costs, the already hefty budgetary burden of paying prior debt interest, and the ever-expanding rolls of government employees, legislators can hardly keep up on the bills these days, let alone inject any more into the economy.  

    The irony, of course, is that by unloading a full clip from the assault rifle when trying to “save” the economy, the governments of the OECD nations have actually created a catch-22 situation. One wherein they not only have no tools left to manipulate the markets against a further slowdown, but also where they have created monetary policy so extreme that undoing it would be more disastrous than the fallout would have been had they not stepped in in the first place.

    Austerity budgets from Greece and Spain have included massive layoffs of government rank and file, severe wage cuts, or both, potentially reducing tax revenues and consumer spending. California is following suit with its proposed 23,000 teacher layoffs, which are arriving on the back of 30,000 previous layoffs just last year. New Jersey is furloughing tens of thousands of state workers and capping raises. NY is furloughing 100,000 more and needs to cut $9.2 billion from the budget still.

    As the walking bankrupt states and cities continue their budget slashing – down from criminally high levels such as Miami, where the average city worker nets $76,000/year compared to the $29,000 average for private citizens of the metropolis – it will only exacerbate the returning slowdown. Fewer households with cash to spend in the private sector. Rising mortgage defaults and foreclosures as the workers face the grim reality that a state paycheck doesn’t come with a 30-year guarantee these days. Declining tax revenues at all levels. And more people on the already busting-at-the-seams federal unemployment files, which remain at all-time highs.

    Speaking of the U.S. federal government, their guaranties of Fannie and Freddie Mac loans are now estimated to cost anywhere from $250 billion to $1 trillion to taxpayers in the end, far above the net cost of any of the other bailout measures and potentially more than is possible to pay. The price tag is so steep, many conservatives are starting to call for repealing the institutions’ charters altogether and letting the private market have at them. The U.S. federal government is simply buried over its head in obligations.

    The government is all tapped out. And yet the economy continues to slow.

    If you are among the camp who wished the government would have never stepped in to begin with and called out the seemingly obvious truth that they could only worsen the situation by flailing so wildly to contain it – the double dip is coming, and you are about to be proven right and get your wish at the same time.

    It’s the price we are all about to pay for letting our politicians get away with budgetary murder year after year, including letting them try to “save” us the last time around.


    Betting on rising interest rates is a slam-dunk opportunity if there ever was one. Learn what Casey Chief Economist Bud Conrad has to say on this topic and which investments will profit once interest rates start going up. Click here for more.

    Disclosure: no position
    Jun 24 2:54 PM | Link | Comment!
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


More »
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.