Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
SP
Exactly.. It appears many on this message board have never been in a boardrooom or
even in a high level meeting regarding business ventures. They think these high
powered CEOs are even giving pphm more than a minutes' thought. Not so. They have
underlings who keep them apprised of what's going on outside of their own company
walls and they will surely be aware when pphm actually has something that is undeniable.
In addition, these CEOs are more concerned with making a high visibility
mistake (a joint venture or buyout of a risky fledgling biotech for hundreds of
millions is high visibility) rather than waiting and spending more on a more sure
thing. It's not their money they'll be using to secure the IP rights later - and who
will know that they have been watching this little biotech for quite awhile and at
a much cheaper price.However, if they move too early and it's a flop it will be their
salary and stock options that will then be at risk. Also, approaching pphm with a
low ball offer will only be (has been ?) rejected and offering what they would take
would only tip your hand.
No, it is a high stakes game of chicken - and I hope we don't get plucked.
cmos
jazz,
Looks like "discovery" has discovered something.
cmos
kt - that was me.
I've been playing around with the numbers wrt the Avid
production runs. I'll kick it out soon.
As far as my swag - I did this mostly to get a feel for
where the company would be in terms of enterprise value
(EV) at my presumed point of buy-out. I assumed the
company would be more aggressive at capturing cash
as the SP increased by using issued shares.
Also, you see I used a fairly conservative P/E of 20.
cmos
pete,
Here's the numbers I come up 1-2 quarters into
licensing:
.................1000s
Avid Rev........ $70,000
License1........ $350,000
License2........ $175,000
License3........ $87,500
COGS............ $128,625
SGnA.............$156,975
RnD..............$102,375
earnings........ $294,525
OS...............275,000
eps..............$1.07
p:e..............20
pps..............$21.42
mktcap...........$5,890,500
cash.............$540,500
EV...............$5,350,000
FWIW
cmos
Jazz,
Thanks for the complete response...
My concern wasn't that it would or would not work (I
believe it will - not blind faith mind you, but researched
expectation), but that it would work TOO well. For example,
some (much?) of the bavi gets "side-tracked" taking care
of more mundane problems as a small bout of flu, some
cholesterol (plaque actually), and a bit of noxious
bacteria while the real nasty cancer gets less of a dose (so
to speak).
cmos
Thanks Jazz, CJ,
It looks like you dug a bit deeper for a couple of more.
BTW: Given all the recognition of PS being a great target -
this brings up a thought that has been nagging at me as to
why it may take a bit more effort (more bavi ?) to see
results in humans vs animal models. With the human of
the species (vs controlled environment/genetics lab
rats) having poor health overall - ie exposed to variety
of 'bugs' and high cholesterol (et al) - maybe it takes
awhile for bavi to fix all the ails including the cancer or
HCV that is the 'primary' target of the clinician ...
Ruminations,
cmos
Wow, I see 8...
Did I miss any?
cmos
http://www.aacr.org/home/scientists/meetings--workshops/annual-meeting-2007.aspx
Abstract Number: 4095
Presentation Title: Selective targeting of cellular immune responses by
chimeric and humanized monoclonal antibodies to phosphatidylserine exposed
in tumor vasculature
Presentation Start/End Time: Tuesday, Apr 17, 2007, 8:00 AM -12:00 PM
Location: Exhibit Hall, Los Angeles Convention Center
Poster Section: 32
Poster Board Number: 10
Author Block: Monica Friedrich, Amy Brideau-Andersen, Bruce Freimark,
Connie Chang. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tustin, CA
Abstract Number: 2128
Presentation Title: Blockade of tumor-derived VEGF activation of VEGF receptor 2
reduces macrophage infiltration into tumors and decreases metastasis in a
pre-clinical orthotopic model of pancreatic cancer
Presentation Start/End Time: Monday, Apr 16, 2007, 8:00 AM -12:00 PM
Location: Exhibit Hall, Los Angeles Convention Center
Poster Section: 20
Poster Board Number: 11
Author Block: Juliet G. Carbon, Shane E. Holloway, Andrew F. Miller,
Anita Kavlie, Kyle Schlunegger, Jason B. Fleming, Rolf A. Brekken. UT Southwestern
Medical Ctr., Dallas, TX, Affitech AS, Oslo, Norway,
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals Inc, Tustin, CA, UT-MD Anderson, Houston, TX
Abstract Number: 4091
Presentation Title: Enhancing the immunogenicity of glioma cells with
anti-phosphatidylserine antibody.
Presentation Start/End Time: Tuesday, Apr 17, 2007, 8:00 AM -12:00 PM
Location: Exhibit Hall, Los Angeles Convention Center
Poster Section: 32
Poster Board Number: 6
Author Block: Jin He, Troy A. Luster, Philip E. Thorpe. UT Southwestern
Medical Ctr., Dallas, TX
Abstract Number: 4092
Presentation Title: Targeting truncated tissue factor with tumor vasculature
specific monoclonal antibodies: developing coaguligands as cancer therapeutics
Presentation Start/End Time: Tuesday, Apr 17, 2007, 8:00 AM -12:00 PM
Location: Exhibit Hall, Los Angeles Convention Center
Poster Section: 32
Poster Board Number: 7
Author Block: Richard H. Archer, Mary Wakabayashi, Roy Sevilla, Scott Summers,
Steven King, Ronald T. Aimes. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tustin, CA
Abstract Number: 4190
Presentation Title: Vasopermeation enhancement agents: A case study in screening
for the most potent variant in a new class of compounds by using a novel avian
embryonic system
Presentation Start/End Time: Tuesday, Apr 17, 2007, 12:10 PM -12:25 PM
Location: Room 515 A, Los Angeles Convention Center
Author Block: Kelly A. Felton, John D. Lewis, Andries Zijlstra, Jennifer Chase,
Keith A. Luhrs, Aparna I. Roy, Debra A. Harris, Christian Frosch, Steven W. King,
Missag H. Parseghian. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Tustin, CA, London Regional
Cancer Program, London, ON, Canada, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN,
Innovascreen, Halifax, NS, Canada, Biobroker, Hamburg, Germany
Abstract Number: 4089
Presentation Title: Fusion proteins composed of mouse IgG2a Fc and mouse
beta-2-glycoprotein 1 bind to endothelial cells with exposed phosphatidylserine
Presentation Start/End Time: Tuesday, Apr 17, 2007, 8:00 AM -12:00 PM
Location: Exhibit Hall, Los Angeles Convention Center
Poster Section: 32
Poster Board Number: 4
Author Block: Troy A. Luster, Philip E. Thorpe. Unversity of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Abstract Number: 3273
Presentation Title: Vascular targeting antibody improves chemotherapy of prostate
cancer
Presentation Start/End Time: Monday, Apr 16, 2007, 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Location: Exhibit Hall, Los Angeles Convention Center
Poster Section: 30
Poster Board Number: 5
Author Block: Yi Yin, Xianming Huang, Jin He, Troy A. Luster, Philip E. Thorpe.
UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Abstract Number: 3539
Presentation Title: Inhibition of tumor growth by targeting cytokines to the
inside-out phosphatidylserine (PS) on tumor vascular endothelium with 2aG4
Presentation Start/End Time: Tuesday, Apr 17, 2007, 8:00 AM -12:00 PM
Location: Exhibit Hall, Los Angeles Convention Center
Poster Section: 8
Poster Board Number: 3
Author Block: Xianming Huang, Dan Ye, Philip Thorpe. UT Southwestern Medical Ctr.,
Dallas, TX
Streetsmart is Java based...
Streetsmart Pro is a windows application
cmos
I was wondering...
I owned a VERY small number of shares of this until the R/S announcement.
Sold then, but still watching - for what, I'm not sure.
cmos
Hello???
Anyone home?
cmos
sojourner,
I absolutely believe UU (and others) are shorting into the
PIPE. That, however, is NOT a death-spiral. That is shorting
against the box and gives the shorter protection from getting
his "shorts" handed to him if big news comes out before he
can cover. It does NOT allow the shorter to receive shares,
short against them to drive price down, get more shares
given new lower prices.... rinse and repeat.
I have shorted against the box myself when I was about to
receive some options due me and I wanted to lock in my
profit immediately.
Again, what they are doing is a bit slimey, but NOT a
death-spiral.
cmos
drragmop.. exactly..
Whereas PIPE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Issue_of_Public_Equity_%28PIPE%29
cmos
Bob, Thank you so much...
A kinder thing has never been said.
cmos out
Have a great long weekend everyone
Katie, wrt news/no news and material events:
>>>
BOT...if the next PR is deferred until the week after Labor Day
How does one defer a material event? My interpretation of events pending for PPHM
translates to they don't have a green light to proceed on any of the pending potential
developments you reference.
>>>
I've found this article by a Harvard law professor to be very helpful.....
and it perhaps brings light to our managements reluctance to do much open market
stock purchases given concerns about "disclose or abstain".
http://www.leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/531/Heinonen.rtf
There are basically two different sets of rules relating to the disclosure of information
by a public company . Firstly, public companies have to release certain information
periodically irrespective of whether any material events or developments have taken place.
The information is to be released annually in connection with the publishing of the annual
report (in Form 10-K – format) and quarterly, when announcing the results from the previous
quarter ended (in Form 10-Q – format). Secondly, certain material events or developments
need to be published at the time they occur or immediately thereafter or, alternatively,
the company and its insiders must abstain from dealing with the securities issued by the
company. This “disclose or abstain” rule thus enables the companies to withhold material
information from markets for significant periods of time (even months) subject to the
prohibition on the company and its officers trading with the securities in question.
There is some uncertainty as to what information is considered significant enough to fulfill
the materiality threshold i.e. which information should be disclosed in connection with
the periodic reporting and which information gives rise to a duty to abstain from trading
if that information is not disclosed. The investor’s investment decisions should be based
on accurate and timely distributed information, but not all information relating to the
corporation is deemed important enough to affect the valuation of the securities of a
company.
<<And he continues>>
As a general rule, all such information that is deemed to affect the price of the shares
should, at some point, be released to the markets. On the other hand, “a corporation is
not required to disclose a fact merely because a reasonable investor would very much like
to know that fact. Rather, an omission is actionable under the securities laws only when
the corporation is subject to a duty to disclose the omitted fact” . At least four different
kind of scenarios, where the company (issuer of the securities) must disclose all material
information, may be identified: i) when the company or the insiders are selling the
securities of the company (offering), ii) when the company is making periodic filings
(quarterly, yearly), iii) when proxy statements are disclosed and iv) when a previously
announced information must be corrected (or updated) . What, then, is the information
material enough to affect the valuation and therefore putting the company under the obligation
to disclose? When is the information deemed to have reached a level of certainty (for example
relating to drug development process) making it ripe enough to be released?
<<<And>>>
... the plaintiff’s argument reads as if firms have an absolute duty to disclose all information
material to stock prices as soon as news comes into their possession. Yet that is not the way
the securities laws work. We do not have a system of continuous disclosure. Instead firms are
entitled to keep silent (about good news as well as bad news) unless positive law creates a
duty to disclose…. The [Securities Act of] 1933 requires firms to reveal information only
when they issue securities, and the duty is owed only to persons who buy from their issuer
or an underwriter distributing on its behalf; every other transaction is exempt…Section 13
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934…adds that the SEC may require issuers to file annual
and other periodic reports – with the emphasis on periodic rather than continuous. Section 13
and the implementing regulations contemplate that these reports will be snapshots of the
corporation’s status on or near the filing date, with updates due not when something “material”
happens, but on the next prescribed filing date….
Sorry for the PLish length of this post
cmos
Magic, welcome.
BP is "Big Pharma" where BB is "Big Biotech"
Good luck and do the due (diligence)
cmos
volgoat, just 1 comment.
You've used the phrase "only one drug that blocked mutation"
a couple of times and I'd like to correct that statement. It's
my understanding that Tarvi/Bavi does not "block mutation",
but instead acts on parts of the infected cell and/or the
free floating virus that is immutable and therefore,
continually recognized by Bavi and an eventually trained
immune system.
Otherwise, great posts. I feel and share your enthusiasm.
cmos
ahdofmytime.. you seem to be stuck on optimize..
They are in the process of OPTIMIZING dosage (single)
for safety. Then they will optimize for efficacy.
They did not/do not have to optimize them simultaneously.
cmos
kt, sunstar, it's a natural log progression.
exp(-2)=0.14
exp(-1)=0.37
exp(0)=1
exp(1)=2.7
exp(2)=7.4
exp(3)=20.1
where exp is [e to the x] (e=2.7183)
crystal clear, right?
cmos
sunstar, if they're going to continue
the logrithmic progression...
~7.4mg/kg would be next. That sounds like a big
jump to me though.
cmos
MSN's Jon Markman has made his own bird flu
stock play list:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P144404.asp
Most the same as listed here.
cmos
UMich Public Health Webcast available:
The archived webcast of the January 24th symposium:
Human Health and Animal Disease: An Epidemiologic Collision?
http://hosted.mediasite.com/hosted/viewer/?cid=9dd48895-0718-4704-8d90-eb4cc13564a7
Interesting listen.
cmos
Sorry Katie.. But I could have told you
Dee Brown is just too tough.
GO ILLINI
ILL....INI
ILL....INI
ILL....INI
We're loyal to you Illinois
We're "Orange and Blue," Illinois
We'll back you to stand
'Gainst the best in the land
For we know you have sand,
Illinois
Rah! Rah!
So crack out the ball Illinois
We're backing you all Illinois
Our team is the fame protector;
On boys, for we expect a
Victory from you Illinois
Chehee, Cheha, Cheha-ha-ha
Go Illini Go
Chehee, Cheha, Cheha-ha-ha
Go Illini Go
Illinois, Illinois, Illinois
Fling out that dear old flag of
Orange and Blue
Lead on your sons and daughters,
Fighting for you;
Like men of old, on giants
Placing reliance, shouting defiance
Oskee-wow-wow!
Amid the broad green plains
That nourish our land,
For honest labor and for learning we stand,
And unto thee we pledge our heart and hand,
Dear Alma Mater, Illinois
cmos
KT. From your 'lips' to God's ears
cmos
KT. You've hit on something I've been
thinking about for awhile.
There has been a great deal of b*tching and moaning about
why no BigPharma stepping up and licensing Tarvacin or
taking a piece of the PPHM action. I think it's this
universal nature that is the blessing and the bane. I
believe that it has been very difficult to construct any
license agreement that allows non-exclusive new product
evaluation/development by BigPharma, allows PPHM to continue
its own development, and at the end of the day protects PPHM
or BP from off-label inroads into their product stream.
cmos
KT... Let me follow-up further..
The only way this thing could work for flu and other
indications where the public would balk at $500+ per dose
would be to have the dose administered be ~0.3mg/kg in
conjunction with other antivirals (Tamiflu etc.)
Then the numbers work (in fact 1000L reactor could then
support almost 10mil doses/yr).
cmos
Of course this is all predicated on me even having a clue.
KT.. My assumption is purely
for cancer indications..
I don't quite know how to make the numbers work with
$50/dose for your basic pandemic flu.
In fact, if I run the numbers with $50/dose, it's a losing
proposition.
That is the problem isn't it? How to market the SAME drug
for cancer, HCV, HIV, Ebola, pandemic Flu, sniffles, ...
.... and charge what the market will bear given the deadliness
of the indication attacked.
cmos
Hi EZ.. I had done some additional prospecting
and I didn't put it here as when you apply $'s to the
calculation it becomes - how should I put this -
amazing, astonishing, awe-inspiring, awesome, exciting,
hair-raising, heart-stirring, impressive, magnificent,
moving, overwhelming, spine-tingling, stunning, thrilling
In any case, you've called me out
(place The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly theme here).
My Continous Feed calculations::
-----------------------Continuous
Latency(days/run)--------------10
Continuous Run(days/run)-------90
Changeover(days/run)-----------10
PM(days/yr)--------------------30
Runs/yr-----------------------3.0
Yield(g/l)--------------------1.1
dose(mg/kg)-------------------1.2
doses/run-----------------814,815
doses/yr----------------2,481,481
medium($/l)------------------$120
other$($/run)------------$350,000
cost/run($)-----------$43,550,000
sales($/dose)----------------$500
revenue($/run)-------$407,407,407
profit($/run)--------$363,857,407
profit($/yr)-------$1,108,111,195
Keep in mind this is PURE Mfg. cost/profit. The flow down
won't be 100% (I'll take 50% thank you very much).
Your mileage may vary.
cmos
KT - wrt Avid MAb-ufacturing..
I ran my own numbers using what I could glean from internet
and the license agreement (Lonza).
This is my 'likely' scenario.
I could only get info on batch processes as continuous feed
is newer (and probably more trade secret protected).
However, I think the numbers are good (given the assumptions
I've made).
----------------------Likely
Cycle Time(days)----------20
Changeover(days)----------10
PM(days)------------------30
Run/yr------------------11.2
Yield(g/l)---------------3.5
dose(mg/kg)--------------1.2
doses/run--------------32407
*90kg patient
doses/yr--------------361883
medium($/l)-------------$120
other($/run)--------$100,000
cost/run($)-------$4,900,000
sales($/dose)---------$1,000
revenue($/run)---$32,407,407
profit($/run)----$27,507,407
profit($/yr)----$307,166,049
So you can see that the 1kL reactor isn't nearly big enough
to make a dent in the demand.
However, the profits could be large given a $1000 cost per
dose.
Food for thought/discussion.
cmos
dia76ca, correct take and good point.
Remember, this is a Phase I study and safety is the primary
endpoint - efficacy comes later. However, I'm a bit concerned
as well that they may have "bit off more than they can chew"
given the poor health their volunteers may be in. The upside
is that this IS being tested on "stricken" patients so some
Phase II applicable data will be forthcoming.
cmos
Jazz,
Here's a spreadsheet I prepared after hearing about the
use of license to increase yield to see what the
impact was...
As you can see, there is quite a spread in possible rev.
based on differing assumptions.
cmos
Best Avg Worst
Cycle Time(days) 20 25 30
Changeover(days) 16 18 20
PM(days) 28 35 42
Run/yr 9.4 7.7 6.5
Yield(g/l) 3 2.5 2
dose(mg/kg) 1 1.25 1.5
doses/run 30000 20000 13333
doses/yr 280833 153488 86133
medium($/l) $110 $125 $140
other$(k$/run) $60,000 $90,000 $120,000
cost/run($) $4,460,000 $6,340,000 $8,520,000
sales($/dose) $3,000 $2,000 $1,000
revenue($/run) $90,000,000 $40,000,000 $13,333,333
profit($/run) $85,540,000 $33,660,000 $4,813,333
profit($/yr) $800,749,444 $258,320,930 $31,094,133
treepeony1
Human Anti-Mouse Antibody is HAMA....
I don't know about the hairtrigger part other than maybe
FDA knee-jerk reaction.
cmos