Do you think that Ovation will end up starting the phase III trial prior to FDA approval of rATIII for HD ATIII deficiency?

I don't think anyone should attack or even be concerned if Croumagnon sells some or all of his shares. He felt uncomfortable with the amount of GTCB he owned during its continuing slide so he sold some off. More power to him if it lets him sleep better at night.

The funny thing about is that people are always attacking management when companies are only thinking short term but not long term. In GTCB, the opposite is true as management is only focused long term without any apparent concern about the near term to the shareholders continued detriment.

I was away for 2 weeks and just returned so I hope this isn't too repetitive. While I do appreciate long term planning, I have to say the the recently announced deal disappoints me in that the upfront payment is too low. I was hoping for at least $15 to $20 milion so GTCB would have enough cash to last deep into or through the first quarter without any more financing. I would have liked to see no need for financing until after FDA approval. So unless GTCB management has some more deals coming up or gets loans from one or more of their current their partners on favorable terms, I give the deal a C at best. Maybe management knows that there will be additional cash coming in from rATIII sales in Europe, or from Merrimack due to a scale up of MM093 for phase III studies or even a planned reduction of executive salaries that will remain in place until the financial crisis passes. The lack of the latter keeps bothering me more and more.

If management cared about shareholders their goal would be to get us through the first quarter of 2009 and FDA approval without a major dilutive funding. Personally, I would like to buy more GTCB but management is making that pretty hard to do.

Vinny

P.S. I like OldBerkeley's cartoons as some days they are the only thing worth coming here to read.

Croumagnon,

You have to consider why Cox's credibility has sunk so low, and deservedly so. He had already incorporated revunues from a partnership that was supposed to materialize near the beginning of 2008. When that didn't happen it was strike one. I understand partnerships can fall through but it was a major error to have such hubris that revenue were used prior to the deal.

Then next error Cox made was to say a partnership was weeks away in early March. It is now late June and nothing yet. Again I understand deals can be tough to complete but why put yourself on the line so soon after the failure of the end or the early 2008 deal comments. This new deal timeline was again delayed to the end of the second quarter, so Cox put his credility on the line again. If nothing happens by the end of this quarter, that is strike two, and I think I am being generous.

The final, and most avoidable error in my view is that all this time Cox has NEVER announced or even hinted at a cost cutting plan to conserve revenues until either a deal or new funding can be obtained. That plan is completely under his control so there are no excuses and I would hope someone at the shareholder meeting would ask him why this wasn't or hasn't yet been done. If such a plan to cut costs in half had been in place as soon as the end of Dec 2007 deal fell through, GTCB would have enough cash on hand to last into the first quarter of 2009. As far as I am concerned that is already strike three. If the shareholder meeting comes and there is NO partnership and NO plan for cutting expenses, then Cox SHOULD be FIRED.

doofus king,

I agree.

You are correct that I am not precisely accurate so I apologize. However, my point is to counter the misopreprentation that GTCB used legal trickery to get approval on a technicallity, as John and another poster implied or outright claimed, respectively. It was simply that GTCB wanted all the patients to be included in the study and that is what happened.

<The EMEA barely approved ATryn, and then only after Genzyme intervened. I don't know if there have been any sales of ATryn, has there? Because at least if there has been sales that is some form of data that will reassure the FDA. >

John,

Why do you need to lie? The EMEA was going to exclude some patients from the data after the study had been completed even after the EMEA had already said those patients would be included. GTCB appealed to have all the patients included as the EMEA originally agreed. The experts on the CHMP review board agreed with GTCB so all the patients were included. You are purposely mispresenting the facts by suggesting it was a legal manuever that required the intervention of Genzyme and it is sickening to me, though not as much as watching the GTCB price come down.

Lew,

We are in complete agreement. Johnbits problem is that he is looking over the entire history of GTCB as some kind of predictor of what will happen in the near future. That is clearly wrong as he doesn't grasp that rATIII approval in Europe changed the partnership terms or that the soon to be accomplished FDA submission will do the same, though not as much as the upcoming FDA approval.

John,

<This is why the terms that GTC gets from its past partners can be used to determine true market cap value.>


Of course that is a gross simplification and misrepresentation. Didn't you ever hear the phrase "past performance does nto guarantee future results". Each deal will differ depending on what product is being partnered. In addition, previous deals came prior to EMEA approval of rATIII. Following FDA approval of rATIII, the metric for deals will once again shift in GTCB's favor for futurer partnerships.

<Some of you are saying this is a 10 baggers opportunity when Gtcb was trading at around 1. Now...this got to be a 20 baggers one...>


Correct. You have mastered elementary mathematics.

I knew there was at least one educated man on this board. Now if we could only make some money on GTCB, we could all have the leisure time to become as educated as oldberkeley.

Ah, another wonderful day in GTCB land. If this kind of day happens a few more times I may start to get worried. :)

I bought some more GTCB today at $0.46, which is my second buy in about a week. I have now increased my shares by 25% in all. Come on Cox, roll a seven with the partnership.

That would send me to the bar, to celebrate!

Speaking of a flush, I just increased my shares of GTCB by 10%. I hope it this latest buy turns out to be like the card hand and not the action of a certain device in the bathroom :)

Thurly,


The size of the deal is one factor in the probability of getting it done. You can't compare a $40 billion dollar deal with one in the $50 million range, which is where GTCB would be. The former requires lots of loans and multiple parnters while the GTCB type deal could easily be done by the partnering company without any outside financing.

lew

<<At this point I would be overjoyed to get in bed with either.>>

Me too. I guess we will both be trolling this weekend for a little nookie!

MTB,

I am doing well. Hope you are the same. I also still have high hopes for GTCB but just feel resigned to the likelihood that more declines are coming. I just wish Cox would make some kind of gesture to conserving some cash, and he could even say that it is a contingency plan to cover the "remote" possibility that the deal will take longer than he expects. I hope you don't mind a little sarcasm there, but I couldn't resist. The thing is that GTCB could really turn around with even a moderately good deal.

Vinny

dufus,

You spell out one possible scenerio that is better that bankruptcy, but I would hardly call it the best case scenerio at this point.

okay, you are crazy :)

MTB,

Thanks for the much needed humor and the hopeful metaphor for GTCB. Just one question. Was the deputy who scared the goat off the bridge named Cox?

Vinny

There are many types of VPs. What was this person a VP in accounting?

Sounds like the person from Baxter is either an idiot or completely out of the loop if he or she hasn't heard about transgenically produced plasma proteins. So, what is this person's position and responsibilities. Is the person an accountant?

oldberkeley,

You know, a few minutes after the scene you depicted from the Maltese Falcon, Bogart takes the gun away from Petter Lorre and knocks him out. Can we expect that later scene from you upon Cox's partnership announcement for rATIII?

Vinny

Dew,

Thanks for transcript of the CC. I was pleased at what I read on a number of issues, especially that GTCB is trying to get a deal where the partner will fund and or conduct the clinical trials for rATIII in acquried deficiencies. Now, if the damn partnership will only materialize. Still, the delay and the "diversion" of the original partner could end being a plus for GTCB. Like in dating, sometimes interest goes way up when the partner feels there is competition for one's affection. Yes, I know I am a hopeless optimist.

Vinny

Dew,

Thanks for the chart of possible uses for rATIII in different acquired deficiences. When the partnership finally does materialize, I would like to see them fully fund trials in one or more of them. The point is we need to expand rATIII past only sepsis since I don't know if GTCB could survive if the sepsis news is bad.

Vinny

It would be too low an offer. I say we hold out for more!!

Cro,

I am thinking along your lines. I doubt there will be any solid announcement about the partnership and the financial picture will look worse than in the last CC.

I did buy some more ONXX today just ahead of their earnings report.

Lew,

Could you explain in more detail?

When GTCB announce their partnership, one of the things I would like to see is that the partner will quickly initiate rATIII trials in aquired indications other than sepsis. GTCB keeps mentioning the myriad uses of rATIII. It would really back up their comments if say a trial begins for coronary heart bypass for example. This would validate GTCB's and keep rATIII and GTCB's eggs from being all in the sepsis basket. I would also like the parner to be responsibile for all the expenses. Is that too much to ask??

oldberkely,

Thanks for making me spit out what I was drinking. She kind of looks like my
ex-wife. The scene you depicted looks like when I kept saying, "honey, how long is this headache going to last, after all I have needs".

Johnbits,

I understand you but you are making my point for me. A perception of current economic conditions, and speculation as to how consumers will respond as well as what people are guessing what might happen in the future is causing AAPL's price to fluctuate. It is not something intrinsic to AAPL's current financial status.

My AAPL example is very valid. The market priced APPL as a greater than $200/share stock, then a $120 stock now a greater than $170 stock. The latter two with essentially zero new AAPL specific information.

Yes I have checked my emotions and I feel disgusted and a bit anxious that GTCB is so low. But that doesn't change my view that it is greatly undervalued. GTCB management does share a good deal of the blame because of their partnership in a few weeks comment way back in Dec and the fact they didn't build up more of a cash cushion. But that doesn't change my view that GTCB is worth a hell of a lot more than what the market says it is right now. The cash crunch is killing the stock price, and once that is resolved to buy more time, then I will feel a lot better. Of course in the near term, the terms of the deal could either lower or raise the stock price. This uncertainty has killed GTCB stock as the low volume shows as everyone is waiting to see exactly what this purported deal is.

The stock market doesn't value a company based on its balance sheet, in the short or long term. Emotions, both fear and greed are major drivers that distort the price. It can be fear or greed that is specific to the stock or to the overall market. Just look at APPL, a company that is as far from GTCB as is possible. It was over $200, then dropped to the $120 just after the past earnings report and is now over $170. What, did the company's intrinsic value get really bad and then really improve, all over the course of a few months?

Quantum,

<My only caution is that although the data points they have are good (safety, equivalence etc.,) they are very few in number. I know this is in a very small patient population and larger trials were not commercially feasible.>

I can't rule out an advisory panel. But you have to keep in mind that GTCB worked with the FDA to design the phase III trial and it was decided then how many patients were need for GTCB to generate sufficient data to merit approval. The phase III trial utilized the requisite number of patients and passed with flying colors. This makes the idea that there were too few patients a bit of a red herring. I do agree that an advisory panal still cannot be ruled out given that rATIII will be the first transgenic protein approved. Howver, I must agree with Dew, I would be far more confident of approval if no panel was convened.

Dew,

Congratulations to you as well. Thanks for the info about MNTA and for all your efforts regarding GTCB.

Vinny

My tequila puking, I mean, drinking colleague was swearing that he only got sick because he ate red tortilla chips before dinner, and they were bad. We still laugh about that today because when we see each other at a meeting, one will say, "stay away from the red chips"

The funny thing is right after he left here, he flew to visit one of his (and my) buddy from graduate school. They went camping and both got so drunk they partially burned down the tent they were sleeping in. When he got back home he didn't drinking a drop of booze for 6 months after his twin ordeals. I think he got into aging research to try and reverse some of the damage he did to himself over that 3 week period.

Vinny

Dew,

What does MNTA have?

MTB,

Funny but I know quite well some of the people who discovered the whole Sir2 connection to aging. One of the current big shots in aging came to my lab for 2 weeks when he was a grad student to learn a technique I had developed. The second to the last night he was here we went out and drank a boat load of tequila. The guy ended up falling out of the taxi when we got home and then vomited at the top of the strairs of my then apartment. I discretely remind him of this every couple of years.

There is a lot of really cool aging work going on now. I was initially pretty skeptical but now think there is a pretty good chance of significantly extending lifespan, or at least making us feel a lot younger and healthier until we die. I don't think resveritol will be the big drug though or even the only drug.

I do agree that we will be laughing about how dumb the market as to keep GTCB so low for so long. PGNX had a nother big rise today on apostive opinion from the EMEA on hteir drug MNTX. The FDA will make its decisn in a few days so there is a good shot at anopther even bigger boost. I increased my shares of PGNX by 40% at $5.26 and $7 a few weeks ago so am looking ot unload about 10% if the FDA does approve. If so, I will likely be adding more GTCB and also some ONXX with my PGNX profits

Dop you have any favorites other than GTCB?

MTB,

Congratulations. I didn't buy SIRT because I thought it was too early stage and speculative. GTCB is far more advanced and closer to a breakthrough on several fronts. I expect a bigger rise than the SIRT one awaits GTCB soon. I just need GTCB to remain lower a bit longer until PGNX get a positive news from the FDA and the EMEA very soon. It has already been rising in anticipation of such news and the shorts are panicing.

<I hate to say this...but I think we will never see > $1 again...the patents that GTCB holds do not interest big pharmas whatsoever.>

It would be more accurate to say you should be embarassed to say what you did. Do you think GTCB's patents have no value? Big pharma will try to do what they can to keep the status quo. What you fail to grasp is that GTCB doesn't need all of big pharma, they just need to win over one of them or some mid-sized pharma with cash and the need for a pipeline. When some positive rATIII data for an acquired deficiency is generated, there will be cracks in the wall of obfuscation and misrepresentation and big pharma will jump on the bandwagon for fear of being left behind.