Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Oct. 18, 2001 / 1 Mar-Cheshvan, 5762

James K. Glassman

Jim Glassman
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

The Battle of Biotech --
EVEN before the Anthrax attacks, biotechnology carried the potential to vastly improve medical care and relieve suffering. Now biotechnology may turn out to be the savior of Western Civilization. Whether the next generation of terror attacks will feature more Anthrax by mail, smallpox, or any of a host of deadly microbes, we could be entering a prolonged battle of biology.

No link has been proven yet between bin Laden and the latest bio-assaults. But we should have no illusions about the appeal of bio-weapons to the evil practitioners of terror, or about the potential harm. And whether it's vaccinating the healthy, treating the sick or developing new weapons to defend the nation on a microscopic scale, America's bio-medical research industry will play an even more important role in our society.

Trying to invest in the companies that will save us from this deadly scourge makes sense, but biotechnology firms are notoriously difficult to evaluate and often carry a huge amount of risk. As we've discussed in previous columns, such firms often lose money for years as they await the results of clinical trials and FDA reviews of their proposed therapies.

Predicting whether a scientist with a promising concept will someday build a profitable business is a major challenge, even for those who fully understand the chemistry. So watching biotech firms is sort of like watching opposing batters face Randy Johnson. There are a few home runs, and lots of strikeouts.

Therefore, for the biotech/health care dollars in your portfolio, it makes sense to invest in a mutual fund dedicated to this sector. The fund should have investments in a number of smaller biotech firms, but also in larger, profitable pharmaceutical and health care firms. That's because many of the larger firms have already bought development and marketing licenses for the technology created by the upstarts, and the established pharmaceuticals continue to pour billions into their own in-house research to develop their own technology. In addition, a bio-war would mean even heavier spending on all kinds of health care products and services used to treat the sick, not just the latest gene therapies.

Which fund to choose? Well, a strong case can be made for the Vanguard Health Care Fund, recently lauded in two separate fund guides from The Wall Street Journal/Morningstar and Money magazine. You may know Vanguard as the large provider of index funds, but this particular one is NOT an index fund. It has been actively managed by Vanguard's Edward P. Owens since 1984.

Owens selects health care stocks he believes will be excellent performers over the long haul, and so he tends to hold stocks for a longer period than many fund managers.

As Owens recently told The Wall Street Journal, "I'm always trying to think longer term than the typical investor." Owens believes - as I do - that in good times and bad, large pharmaceutical firms are a great place to invest your money.

(In my forthcoming book, "The Secret Code of the Superior Investor," out in December, I have a chapter lauding pharmaceutical stocks, "Do Drugs.")

So "big pharmas" usually comprise the bulk of the fund's portfolio. And Owens has had tremendous success in choosing which particular health care firms deserve his clients' money. For the 10-year period ending in September 2001, Vanguard Health Care was the top-ranked mutual fund in The Wall Street Journal survey, delivering a stellar 20.9% average annual return.

As the Journal's Kara Scannell noted, Owens "is no stranger to the winners' circle in our contest; his fund also was the best performer for 10-year periods ended in 1998 and again earlier this year." So the fund has performed brilliantly over the long haul, and the short haul hasn't been too shabby either. Vanguard Health Care boasts a total return of almost 86% during the last three years. Not bad when you remember that the broader market has been taking a beating for the last 19 months.

Expenses for the fund amount to just 34 basis points (about one-third of a percentage point) per year, a bargain for a successful, actively managed fund, which, more typically would be charging 150 basis points. The only knock on this fund is a big one - because the fund has gotten so popular, Vanguard can be very choosy. The minimum initial investment is $25,000. But don't despair if you can't afford it. Another way to benefit from Owens's stock picking is to buy what he buys. In recent months, he's been loading up on Bayer, the German conglomerate that makes Cipro, among other things.

Bayer's American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), the equivalent to regular shares of stock, are available on the Over-The-Counter market under the symbol BAYZY. Remember that Bayer has had management problems lately, and it's a good idea always to spread your biotech (or even conventional pharma) holdings wide.

JWR contributor James K. Glassman is the host of Tech Central Station. Comment by clicking here.


10/05/01: Two Techs for Tough Times
09/26/01: The Information War
09/05/01: Tech firms built to last through tough times
08/23/01: Stocks on the A-List
08/17/01: Labor and management finding online learning to their liking
08/08/01: Game makers poised to profit
07/19/01: Trade Promotion Authority: High-Techís Key Component for Competitiveness
07/12/01: Nothingís arbitrary about the contrarians
06/27/01: Look to Politics to Find Broadband's Market Cap Shortfall
06/22/01: Tech Commodity Buys Available for Mining
06/18/01: The Blackout Portfolio
06/14/01: The conservation myth stars as latest (sub)urban legend
06/07/01: Will America go high tech on the high seas?
06/05/01: 'Price gouging' doesn't cut it as reason for rising energy prices
06/01/01: Authentication tools opening up opportunities in online security
05/25/01: 'Price gouging' doesnít cut it as reason for rising energy prices
05/21/01: Banking on High-Tech Education
05/17/01: It's No Time to Go Wobbly on Kyoto
05/02/01: Diversify with techís leaders
04/26/01: To Revive The New Economy, Release A Chokehold   —   Break Up The Bells
04/24/01: Whoís To Blame For Broadband Crisis? Wired Article Points To Bells
04/19/01: The Bush Budget
04/12/01: To revive The New Economy, release a chokehold --- break up the Bells
04/04/01: Even as stocks have fallen, the Net keeps booming
03/28/01: Whereís The Profit In Biotech Future?
03/22/01: The Joy of Debt: The last thing we should want is a U.S. Treasury flush with cash
03/19/01: 'Defensive' Stocks in the NASDAQ
03/15/01: Bush administration must say no to Jane and Kyoto
03/08/01: Time to buy small caps? Consider these five great techs
03/01/01: Billís and Larryís continued political adventures
02/26/01: Chips on the Dips?
02/23/01: How Tauzin Can Keep His Word And Stop Telecom "Remonopolization"
02/13/01: Consumers, WAKE UP! Middlemen are ripping you off
02/02/01: Publicity-Seeking Politicians and Contingency-Fee Lawyers Corrupt the Law
01/26/01: DoubleClick, eBay And Their Promising Ilk
01/24/01: Will Cyberspace Look Like France or America?
12/27/00: Cut interest, taxes and regulation to save high-tech economy
12/20/00: Close, But No Big Czar
12/15/00: A Down Year? Maybe. But Letís Put It in Perspective
12/13/00: Clintonís sorry midnight race into history
12/07/00: Is Telecomís Future The Bells, The Bells, and Only The Bells?
12/01/00: Money talks and walks in election aftermath
11/29/00: Climate Treaty Deadlock Shows Lack of Consensus and Common Sense
11/23/00: Climate change participants donít listen to reasons for uncertainty
11/21/00: Will Regulators Create a Recession?
11/14/00: The Election and the Market
10/26/00: Hang on for the long term
10/25/00: On privacy, one size doesnít fit all
10/24/00: Perish the bearish thought
10/19/00: Beating hunger --- the biggest prize
10/13/00: Way to play biotech
10/12/00: Bush vs. Gore on Technology
10/11/00: Global Climate Scare: Fools Rush In
10/05/00: Avoid the Apple Trap
10/03/00: Goodbye, anti-Microsoft crusader --- and good riddance
09/29/00: Should You Invest in Tech IPOs?
09/27/00: Could technology end airline delays?
09/22/00: Donít Forget Small Caps
09/20/00: Is the New York Times Rooting for Disaster?
09/13/00: The Best Argument Against Net Regulation
08/30/00: Political Risk in Big Drug Stocks
07/27/00: Tech Dividends
07/25/00: Government Privacy Violators
07/20/00: If I Had to Pick One Tech Stock
07/18/00: Our Favorite Lawsuit
07/13/00: Silicon Valley East
07/11/00: Election 2000: Year of the Investor Class?
07/07/00: Adventures on the
07/06/00:The Difference Between Bill Gates and Larry Ellison
06/29/00: In the Chips
06/27/00: Free market wins in Federal Court!
06/22/00: Wireless Bargains?
06/20/00: Is Your SUV Warming the Planet?
06/15/00: Shopping for Government
06/13/00: Top 10 Tech Stocks
06/08/00: Riding the eBook Wave
06/06/00: "The Last Mile"
06/02/00: Keep Buying!
05/31/00: Who Asked the FTC to Regulate Online Privacy?
05/25/00: "When Itís Time to Sell"
05/23/00: End the "Telephone Tax"
05/16/00: Time Warner Gets a Bad Rap

© 2000, Tech Central Station