The stock has been knocked down 80% from its highs off of the short reports. I did my own research, and I don't find any credibility to those claims by the shorts.
1/ The company looks cheaply valued at only $1.3 billion market cap with over $123 million in projected 2022 revenues and $197 cash on the books.
2/ Berkley Lights makes machines that automate and simply the lab process. They have 3 machines with the Beacon, the Lighting and the Culture Station. The main machine is the Beacon which uses chip built with thousands of pens.
3/ They will fill these pens with cells. Then the machine can analyze all these cells to find the perfect cells that meet all the desired criteria.
4/ This system can be used in Antibody discovery, Cell Therapies and Synthetic biology. They offer a array of chips and reagent kits to preform all kinds of cell analysis. They can make hybridoma for monoclonal antibodies at 10x the capacity and reduce the time by 90%.
5/ The cost of the machines is expensive so they offer different options to companies. The companies can purchase that machines and kits to run the machine. They can do a subscription which they rent the machine quarterly then buy all the kits and reagents.
6/ The last option is they can use the Berkley Light foundry to do their work and do a collaboration that can lead to $BLI getting some of the downstream economics.
7/ Someday this could be the Digital Biology company of the future. I think the tech is there for these machines to automate and simplify the lab requirements of many companies.
8/ As more companies get the opportunity to see what they can do, I think they will eventually become one of the major lab tech companies of the future. The ability of them to reduce time and work with increased accuracy could put these machines in ever lab in 10 or 20 years.
9/ I know they said the average use per machine was $250,000 in chips and reagents. They can generate a considerable amount of revenue even if they don't get the capital spending of the company buying the machine.
10/ They can lease the machines to these companies and make money off the reagents and technical support. As the company grows, they will develop new kits and workflows to give these machines more functions.
11/ They also have the Lightning which is an assay machine. I don't know a lot about this machine yet. They also have a culture station which allows for the culture of cells without taking away use of the Beacon machine.
12/ The one risk I saw was they had a patent dispute with AbCallera. I don't know what kind of impact if any that could have on the company if they lost that case.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here we will look at the use of Automation, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in the Discovery of new drugs.
1/ Introduction:
It can take up to 10 years to develop a new drug. A majority of that time is spent in the lab testing targets and ideas. Its the process of sorting through thousands of potential targets to find the one that is worth advancing.
2/ It can cost a ton of money to develop a drug. The statistics show that it can cost upward of $2.5 billion to bring a new drug all the way to commercial. The high level of failure and high costs of testing and discovery is one space where technology can really help.
I don't think I have changed anything this week. I came close today to nibbling one of my stocks that got hit today for no reason, but waited. I have no plans of selling anything this year as my taxes are closed out for 2021.
All * mean my top 3 the extras are subject to trading sale later. I bought a ton of extra companies down here so I have more to sell for profits on the way back up.
My cash is at 25.95% My lowest cash position since the Spring of 2020.
Everyone has to develop their own style. You have to go with what works for you. No one person's style is right for everyone. Different people can have different styles that work.
I would never criticize anyone for using a different style from me. Just because mine is different from your doesn't make it wrong. I just use a different style.
I buy into my stock each 10% to 15% they pull back. Then I fade them on the way back up each 20% they run. For the index, I use 10% as its not as big of a mover as many individual stocks. I always keep a minimum position as a core investment.
I have 2 themes that are overweight. I had a few names in there I was debating. I finally made my decisions on the synthetic biology and genomics spaces for the companies that would go.
For synthetic biology, I think it has to be $CDXS. Its an enzyme company that has a role in synbio, but its not as much play on this space as the other names. I am not sure how big the revenues are for enzymes. It might be a small business.
I would keep $DNA, $TWST, $BLI and $AMRS. I set my bid to sell all my $CDXS with a go to complete order at a price I would be happy with. I don't think there is a rush. I would even add some if it really sold off from here.
I was going to do a Bio Chem course for SynBio. It seemed right to go along with my Mastery of Genetics, Immunology and Oncology. That is when I realized my chem and organic chem was rusty. Here is my list.
I have always been a stock picker. I have always valued my skills at picking the best companies out of a long list of companies. I am going to show you how I do it.
1/ If you take any index, a good investor can go over the companies in that index and pick out the top 10 or so that are the best. If you don't have the time, then holding an index is great. If you do have the time, you can outperform any index by picking the best of the best.
2/ I am going to use the $ARKG since its the most popular biotech fund. I love and respect these folks who run this fund. I think they are great people. I also think I could go over their 50 or so holdings and extract the top 10 that I think will outperform over the next decade.