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.
This is a $100 million cap company that has a moat due to their vast experience with the government in the area of vaccines and the underlying adenovirus vector platform.
We will get a halftime peek at the P3 trial on TNFerade for pancreatic cancer later this year. That's where they're spending all their available cash. They decided to go "all in" on TNF based on great survival benefits in the P2 results. To date they've been showing remarkable survivor benefits on several cancers.
There's even a remote chance the FDA will move quickly to push the drug through if the interim results are excellent. It's sold for close to 3 and nothing bad but expected dilution has happened.
I see it as an easy double if the results emulate P2's overall survival (the endpoint).
Someone will buy them or the drug shortly thereafter.
Beware. I've been wrong betting on P2 results before.
Financials on biotechs always suck when a big trial is in process.
Dave
Actually APPX is a generic injectable company and has been same since the spinoff.
As it was bought on the basis of proven profits it dilutes the message of the great recent buyouts.
Dave
Lost a big bunch on MCU early this year. Dabbling in GNVC and SGMO. The good SGMO site is investors village.
Dave
Sangamo partners with Roche for non-exclusive transgenic animal research. Sigma Aldrich connection' first yield.
"ST. LOUIS and RICHMOND, Calif., July 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sigma-Aldrich Corporation (Nasdaq: SIAL - News) and Sangamo BioSciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: SGMO - News) today announced a research and license agreement to provide Roche (SWX: ROG - News) with non-exclusive, worldwide rights for the use of its proprietary zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) technology to develop cell-lines and transgenic animals that have targeted modifications in a specified gene in a specified species. Roche also has an option to obtain an exclusive, worldwide license for the commercial use of such ZFN-generated transgenic animals in the production of therapeutic and diagnostic products.
The research phase of the agreement will be conducted in collaboration with both Sangamo and Sigma-Aldrich, Sangamo's exclusive licensee of ZFN technology for high-value research reagents.
"There is growing appreciation of the value of ZFN technology as a rapid, reliable and highly specific tool for modifying genes in eukaryotic cells and whole organisms," said David Smoller, Ph.D., President of Sigma-Aldrich's Research Biotech Business Unit. "We are excited to be working with Sangamo to provide Roche with high-value ZFN reagents for the generation of transgenic animals. ZFN technology promises to enable the generation of a variety of transgenic models of human disease, expediting drug development and production."
"Roche is a leading global healthcare company with an established reputation of innovation. We are pleased to provide them with our ZFN technology which provides a cutting-edge approach for disease research," said Edward Lanphier, Sangamo's President and Chief Executive Officer. "The frequency and precision of ZFN-mediated genome editing, in combination with the ability to design ZFNs against potentially any gene, opens up the possibility of more easily generated transgenic animals of any species."
Zinc finger DNA-binding proteins (ZFPs) are the dominant class of naturally occurring transcription factors in organisms from yeast to humans. Transcription factors, which are found in the nucleus of every cell, bind to DNA to regulate gene expression. Though there are many kinds of transcription factors, only ZFPs are amenable to engineering and precise targeting of a particular gene or genes of interest. ZFNs are engineered forms of ZFPs that also contain a nuclease component which can facilitate modification of a target gene of interest.
"The power of ZFN technology was recently demonstrated in a study published in Nature Biotechnology," said Philip Gregory, D.Phil., Sangamo's Vice President for Research. "Using ZFNs in zebrafish, a widely recognized system for human disease modeling and in vivo drug discovery, resulted in the generation of fish in which the ZFN-targeted gene has been eliminated or 'knocked out'. Apart from the mouse, the majority of other animals including zebrafish have historically lacked methods for precision targeted mutagenesis. This publication demonstrates that ZFNs present a powerful solution to this problem with application across virtually any species for any gene."
Terms of the Agreement
Under this agreement, Sangamo will provide a non-exclusive, worldwide research license for the use of its proprietary ZFN technology in the development of transgenic animals. In this phase Roche will pay research fees, including research maintenance fees and research event payments. If Roche elects to exercise its option for an exclusive commercial license it will owe Sangamo an option license fee, additional payments upon the achievement of certain clinical development events and royalties on sales of therapeutic and diagnostic products developed by Roche using the ZFN-modified animals."
Dave
re gnvc: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Define HR and KM.
Thanks,
Dave
Re GNVC Au contraire: from the 10Q:
Based on the results of our Phase I studies, we initiated a Phase II dose-escalation study in 50 patients with locally-advanced, inoperable pancreatic cancer to determine the best therapeutic dose for use of TNFerade in combination with standard chemoradiation. Results from this study suggested a dose-dependent improvement in tumor response, rates of surgical resection, time to disease progression, and survival. Based on these data, we initiated a randomized, controlled Phase II study of 74 patients. In consultation with the FDA, this Phase II study was amended in March 2006 to become a pivotal Phase II/III 330-patient trial (PACT) that would support registration of TNFerade for this indication. The primary endpoint for the PACT trial is survival at 12-months. We conducted an interim safety and efficacy analyses of the Phase II/III trial in the fourth quarter of 2006, and in December 2006, we reported the preliminary analysis of safety data based on the first 40 patients treated, and on overall survival data, a secondary endpoint, on the first 51 patients treated. Additional data was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology in June 2007 at which we reported an increase in overall survival from 11.1 months for patients receiving standard of care alone versus 19.3 months for patients receiving TNFerade plus standard of care. ...."
Re Genvec: 1) The FDA probably asked for the change to overall survival. It's the gold standard and easily understood and appreciated by every oncologist. I assume the company went along with the request because, in return, they have a good chance at earlier than expected positive results with application approval based thereon + interim peeks with minimal statistical burden. That reduces their cost. A change from 1 year survival to overall survival will surely include the early patients because the trial protocol remains unchanged. Those patients were sure to be maintained beyond 1 year because of the incidental beneficial interim results.
2} Don't you find it compelling that 7 of the events came from the 18 SOC segment and only 5 from the 34 SOC + TNF side?
3) from the subsequent press release:
http://www.genvec.com/download/press/TNFerade%20INTERIM%20EFFICACY%20RESULTS%20RELEASE_12182006_FINAL757667_1).pdf
You know that calling it a single patient difference is a gross distortion of the trend illustrated by these early results.
Dave
Great news for Genvec. In exchange for changing the trial from 1 year survival to overall survival Genvec got a promise of early approval if interim data proved conclusive and a very minor statistical burden for those interim looks. Early interim data reported last March indicated 42% absolute gain in overall survival in the TNFerade arm vs. SOC. The endpoint hoped for 20%.
That was 51 patients. With an interim look at the first 92 or 96 patients, stat sig seems to me like a given.
This could be an approved drug in 2009.
Management's decision to throw the bucks and effort at this program at the expense of other promising programs is herewith justified.
Dave
Dave
GNVC capitulation: I bought some this morning for 1.71.
Here's a review:
The company was known as an adenovirus vector platform with good government contracts that went a long way toward financing their research. In December of 2006 they reported astounding survivor benefits from an interim peek at 51 patients in a P2 trial for TNFerade a pancreatic cancer drug.
At that point they mortgaged some of their future in adenovirus via a long term semi government contract to concentrate $ on THFerade. The share price soared from 1.32 in September 06 to 2.4 in December to 4.72 in spring of 07.
In May very early P3 data on TNF showed no tumor shrinkage and the shares went into a nosedive into the low 2's. In recent days it dropped again to around 1.7.
I believe early tumor response in pancreatic cancer pales in signifigance to survivor benefits.
The drug has great promise and the adenovirus vector platform still exists.
I think the share price is well below where it should be.
Take a look.
Dave
Galapagos: CRXL is linked to them. G's news always shows up under the symbol. Crucell.
Dave
SGMO hits new highs after rec.
NEW YORK (AP) -- Shares of DNA technology company Sangamo Biosciences Inc. rose Wednesday, a day after Pacific Growth Equities initiated coverage on the company with a "Buy" rating.
The stock rose 82 cents, or 5.3 percent, to $16.37 in midday trading. Shares reached a 52-week high of $16.70 earlier in the trading session, topping a previous peak of $16.40.
ADVERTISEMENT
Pacific Growth Equities analyst Liana Moussatos said the company has the potential to produce one or more blockbuster drugs and has a wide patent estate, covering applications in research, medicine and agriculture.
The company focuses on developing drugs using DNA-binding proteins. For drug development, the technology is aimed at treating the genetic root of a condition.
"With a lead clinical candidate which we believe could be a breakthrough treatment for diabetic neuropathy, spinal cord injury and PAD (peripheral artery disease), a potentially 'game-changing' platform, and the potential for financially significant partnerships and M&A, we believe Sangamo is an attractive investment opportunity for smallcap healthcare stock investors," she wrote in a note to investors.
The company's pipeline is being tested in 14 indications, she said, with SB-509 in midstage studies for diabetic neuropathy. The condition is a complication associated with diabetes that causes nerve damage.
"Sangamo has the ability to generate new product candidates in as little as a couple of months," she said.
Picking a top for a true platform company is guesswork. When I first plugged it here last year it was around $5 or $6.
Dave
Again, Lumpy, you're evaluating the stock as if the technology has not been proven and huge uptake will certainly result when proven. The proof of effectiveness has been there for a long time. Even if the company's estimates had been exceeded significantly there would have been no profits.
A pro forma evaluation of the share price based on anything like their own forecasts shows it as grossly overvalued.
I don't know why there is so little uptake but it's a market fact by now. Face it.
Dave
I have quadrupled my position in MCU. I believe RBC is misreading the P2 results and don't understand the implications of the SPA.
Dave
sounds like a good short term plan. Nowadays the markets react like nintendo designed it.
Rothschild said the time to invest was when blood was running in the streets. Tough to pick the bottom when it's diving though.
Dave
Re GNVC That's a valid point.
The mometum players who rode from 1.3 to 4 something bailed when the PR elucidated the ongoing desire to change the FDA game to take an early read on survivability. That + the ambiguous 3 month data + the disappointment regarding the number of recruited patients had a triple whammy effect on share price. A haircut was in order. But, how do we find the bottom?
The need for cash to support the trial can be deferred till 2008 and there is a safety net financing package in place.
Any positive developments can turn this around in a heartbeat. More profits fron the adenovector segment. Increasing rate of recruitment. An agreement with the FDA.
We shall see.
Dave
Survival vs traditional clinical endpoints (GNVC) (DNDN)
There is a just published article in the Journal of Clinical Cancer Research that says that traditional clinical endpoints probably are not the way to judge efficacy in cancer vaccines. Survival is the key.
CNBC's Huckman relates the article to DNDN. Fuerstein comments on that saying it has little to do with the value of DNDN.
I see it as support for my positive stance on GNVC. I maintain that the 3 month data on GNVC's TNFerade that caused the plunge from 4.5 to 2.35 pales in comparison to the huge survival benefits shown in the earlier, longer trial results. Investors cannot see the forest for the trees.
Dave
Technical springboards, like GNVC's position:
http://www.stockconsultant.com/consultnow/basicplus.cgi?ID=sample&symbol=GNVC&84904#ttop
which offers 100% bullish look and 100% upside trade potential oftentimes is the result of short term downside reaction to a perceived binary event.
In this case the market perceived the TNFerade data recently updated as very negative. If you feel it's a tempest in a teapot, get in now.
Dave
Sangamo, SGMO, triggers Dow Agro milestones, 2 crops: corn and canola. The upshot is the virtual certainty that Dow will exercise it's option to enter into commercial license agreements with the company. In addition to a few mil now they get 6 mil in October 2008 plus 20 mil+ minimum per year for each license agreement+ royalties. Dow was extravagant in their praise of the applicability of the technology to plants.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070619/aqtu020.html?.v=18
Dave
Re biogeneric tools. SGMO partners with Amgen, Genetec, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, J & J and others to enhance protein production.
However, I believe the tools are probably being used to combat biogenerics rather than create them.
Dave
Feeling very dumb after buying more GNVC in the 2.90's yesterday. Holding back a tidal wave is harder than catching a falling knife.
Dave
I'm wrong, Lung, re stem cells. Using them makes more sense than flushing them. Wrong place to draw a line.
Dave
Re embryonic stem cells. I'm agnostic but find abortion abhorrent. Perhaps the president's stance is naive and scientifically impractical but I'm glad that the community is finding ways around using potential human life forms during the time he's had his finger in the dike.
JMHO from a former Jesuit taught Catholic.
Dave
Re coffee. I drink about 8 cups (black) a day and consume my share of alchohol. Thanks for contributing to the delinquency of a major. Now I know the counter balancing extends beyond the stimulant/depressant syndrome.
I'd be afraid to try a designer drug due to my addictive nature.
Got a cig?
Dave
Rutger Hauer That's really cool. He was one scary sumbitch in that one, blade. Thanks for the mems.
Dave
Re GNVC CA 19-9. Yes. No change was expected this early.
That was the whole theme regarding the synopsis of all data. Survival paralleled the control arm in the Phase II data until many months later. Few, if any, changes were to be expected from 12 week data on this extremely agressive disease.
They said something about bigger tumors in the control arm as a guess. I wasn't listening hard at that part of the discussion as it sounded like a non-issue in terms of importance.
Dave
Re GNVC The comments re systemic response was in the context of possible explanations for the great survival data that could possibly apply to metastatic when asked a question about launching an immediate metastatic trial. He was referring to small unmeasurable nodules that are assumed to exist in most PC patients. The final answer was: We'll concentrate on this one trial and look to label expansion at the appropriate time.
I didn't hear the "exact words" blade did and I listened to the whole call.
Dave
GNVC pgs Was it not you who opined that the trial design sucked because a 20% target response in survival was way too high a hurdle for having much chance of success?
Then the top line data came out. The response rate exceeded 40%.
According to the company on the conference call the short term data on such things as tumor size as defined by ct scans means next to nothing to pancreatic oncologists. There has never been any proven correlation between tumor size and survival in this disease. Survival is their primary, secondary and 3rdary target. The oncologists who stopped by all concentrated on the KM survival curve and nodded when the Phase II SOC showed 11.1 months and wowed when they saw the 19.3 month median survival on the TNF line. Overall survival is whaqt pancreatic cancer treatment is all about.
The company hopes to convince the FDA to allow them to look at the overall survival at 150 patients and, if a, say, 30% response rate looks real to do the endpoint analysis and consider an application. That's plenty of power.
The interim safety was fine. The known survial data is absolutely compelling. End of story.
Dave
GNVC Yes, interim looks at secondary endpoints cause no alpha penalty to the primary endpoint.
You are referring to peeks at overall survival where 1 year survival is the primary endpoint as is the case of TNFerade.
Dave
Re GNVC methinks Thornton's recent notoriety and his mention of discussing the trial design with the FDA to speed things up (in midstream), added to the ambiguity Dew and others saw, has even sophisticated investors concerned. A haircut was in order.
On the other hand the survival data is very compelling. Also, this is far from a one trick pony. Maybe I jumped in too soon but I still like the company and TNFerade long term.
Dave
Re SGMO PR. They are of the opinion that investors have given short shrift to this Dow deal. It would be impolite to preempt Dow by giving their own updates. How might you have phrased this event to update your shareholders?
Here is the whole release:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070605/aqtu286.html?.v=1
Sangamo's PR lady is a believer. Is she gushing too much?
Dave
Dow AgroSciences Highlights Partnership With Sangamo in Wall Street Presentation
Tuesday June 5, 4:13 pm ET
Dow AgroSciences describes Sangamo technology as part of its 'Game Changing' innovation strategy
RICHMOND, Calif., June 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sangamo BioSciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: SGMO - News) today announced that its partner, Dow AgroSciences, LLC highlighted the successful collaboration between the two companies in a recent presentation to investors on Wall Street. The presentation made by Daniel R. Kittle, Ph.D., Dow AgroSciences vice president of Research and Development, was part of the Merrill Lynch Agricultural Chemicals Conference in New York.
ADVERTISEMENT
"We continue to be very impressed with our partnership with Sangamo and with the overall progress of our collaboration," said Kittle. "The scientific milestones that we have achieved mark key events in the application of the ZFP technology toward trait generation and trait stacking, and importantly were achieved across different crop plants core to our healthy oils and crop protection businesses. The ZFN(TM) technology platform has significant potential for the development of precision traits."
In a press release distributed earlier today, Dow AgroSciences said that "Cutting-edge techniques, such as the ability to precisely target and regulate gene function in plants through an agreement with Sangamo BioSciences, are enabling the company to reach key discovery milestones. Dow AgroSciences has been able to target native genes in canola using engineered ZFN(TM) technology to affect specific gene sites with exceptional precision. In addition, ZFNs(TM), designed to specifically cleave a native corn gene sequence, were used to target a pre-selected site and enable site-specific transgene integration. This represents the first successful targeted integration of DNA into a pre-selected native corn sequence."
The three-year agreement between Dow AgroSciences and Sangamo BioSciences was initiated in October 2005 and it provides Dow AgroSciences with access to Sangamo's proprietary zinc finger DNA-binding protein (ZFP) technology for the development of products in plants and plant cell cultures. During the initial three-year research term, Dow AgroSciences has the option to obtain a commercial license to sell products incorporating or derived from plant cells generated using Sangamo's ZFP technology, including agricultural crops, industrial products and plant-derived biopharmaceuticals."
Dave
Re GNVC looks good at this level. ASCO result critics are losing sight of the forest with all those trees out there. Bought a slug.
Dave
Re FDA trial transparency: Agreed pgs.
The FDA has responsibilities to current and future patients using drugs that clearly don't work. Public exposure would also advise shareholders. That is in the public interest.
Involved companies should be given reporting deadlines.
Dave
Clearly, Amgen, Pfizer, Genentech, J & J, Novo Nordisk, Dow, etc. etc. find their technology compelling.
Perhaps you might try reading the one of 10,000 pages on their website I quoted rather than making snide unsupported comments when you don't really care to understand.
Dave
Agreed, zinc fingers are common. Sangamo has locked up the IP on zinc finger trancription factor and zinc finger nuclease technology.
"Engineering Transcription Factors to Regulate Genes
Transcription factors are naturally occurring proteins that function within the nucleus of a cell to regulate gene expression. Transcription factors function by binding to specific sites on DNA and causing nearby genes to be turned on or off. (fig. A)
DNA binding alone is not sufficient for a transcription factor to induce a change in gene expression. A second component must also be brought into close proximity to the gene in order to regulate it. In higher organisms, transcription factors typically consist of two principal components: a DNA-binding domain and a functional domain that causes the target gene to be activated or repressed. (fig. B)
At Sangamo we engineer novel transcription factors that mimic the natural mode of gene regulation. Our technology is based on the engineering of a naturally occurring class of DNA-binding proteins, zinc finger DNA binding proteins or ZFPs. We can engineer ZFPs to recognize a DNA sequence close to or within a gene of choice. By attaching a functional domain to that ZFP we generate a ZPF transcription factor (ZFP TF) that can regulate the target gene up or down (see above) or a ZFN that can modify a gene.
Engineering ZFPs to Modify Genes
ZFPs can be engineered with a DNA-cutting, or nuclease, domain to generate zinc finger nucleases or ZFNs. The ZFN is able to "recognize" its intended gene target through its engineered (ZFP) DNA binding domain (fig. B). However, instead of regulating the expression of the target gene (as with a ZFP TF), the ZFN causes the gene to be cut near the ZFP binding site triggering a natural repair process.
Why do we use ZFPs?
ZFPs are the only DNA-binding motifs that are amenable to engineering. Each “finger” structure is a small modular unit that recognizes and binds to 3 base pairs of DNA. These modules can be joined together to bind longer DNA sequences. This diagram represents a 3-finger ZFP (in green) binding to a nine base pair long sequence of DNA (in blue). Each “finger” contains a zinc atom (pink) that maintains its structure; one particular region of the finger, known as the alpha helix (depicted in yellow on the first finger) is used to make contact with the DNA. (fig. C)
A closer view of the alpha helix shown here highlights the four key amino acid residues that make contact with the DNA. If different residues are substituted in these positions then a different sequence of DNA will be recognized and bound. Sangamo has done extensive work to determine which combinations of residues at these positions enable recognition and binding of which DNA bases. (fig. D)
DNA Binding Domain
Sangamo scientists can design and engineer ZFPs to bind to sequences in any target gene. The ZFP is attached to an appropriate functional domain to generate a ZFP TF that can regulate that gene. DNA encoding the ZFP TF or ZFN is introduced into cells. When the ZFP TF or ZFN protein is expressed, it binds to the DNA of the target gene and has a biological effect dependent on the functional domain being used. (fig. E)
Using our ZFP Technology genes can be:
Activated:
Human cells transfected with a ZFP TF designed to upregulate the expression of the human EPO gene produce more EPO protein that cells that undergo a normal physiological response to low oxygen levels. (fig. F)
Repressed:
Repressed: Human cells expressing Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor- A (VEGF-A) were stably integrated with a gene encoding a ZFP TF designed to down regulate the expression of the VEGF-A gene. The expression of the ZFP TF was regulated by tetracycline. Adding tetracycline to the cells causes increased expression of the ZFP TF which then shuts down the expression of VEGF. (fig. G)
Corrected:
Genetic diseases such as X-linked SCID and sickle cell anemia are caused by mutations within single genes. "Gene Correction" is the process by which a mutation, or disease causing DNA sequence, can be repaired with the "correct" DNA sequence, restoring normal gene function. Our engineered ZFPs can be attached to nuclease domains to create ZFNs. The ZFN is able to "recognize" its intended gene target through its engineered (ZFP) DNA binding domain (fig. B). However, instead of regulating the expression of the target gene (as with a ZFP TF), the ZFN causes the gene to be cut near the ZFP binding site triggering a repair process and facilitating the incorporation of the corrected DNA sequence into the chromosomal location where the disease related mutation previously existed (fig. H). A segment of DNA or “donor sequence” that encodes the correct gene sequence is also introduced into the cell to provide a template for the correction of the cellular gene. The process of gene correction occurs naturally and is called homologous recombination (HR). While gene correction has been pursued in academic research laboratories for over a decade, its clinical application has been limited by the low efficiency of HR, the biological process of gene repair. HR occurs naturally at a rate of approximately once in every one million cells receiving the DNA donor sequence; this rate is too low to be of clinical use. However, we, and our collaborators, have shown that the use of engineered ZFNs to cleave the target gene near the defective sequence can increase the efficiency of targeted HR by several thousand times. ZFP Therapeutic gene correction is a revolutionary technical approach to gene repair because ZFNs, like all ZFPs, can be engineered to recognize virtually any target gene in the human genome. We are working to generate the preclinical data necessary to evaluate the potential utility of this approach for X-linked SCID and hemoglobinopathies such as sickle cell anemia and b-Thalassemia.
Disrupted:
ZFNs can also be used to disrupt a gene sequence. This may have therapeutic applications in diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. To effect ZFN-mediated gene disruption, ZFNs are introduced into cells without an added DNA donor sequence. Under these circumstances, introduction of a double stranded break in the cellular gene prompts the cell’s repair machinery to rejoin the two broken ends of the DNA (fig. I) In so doing, this error-prone process introduces alterations into the gene sequence, disrupting the gene’s normal coding sequence. This disruption frequently results in a shortened or non-functional protein product. In the case of HIV we are using this approach to disrupt the gene that encodes a cellular protein, CCR5, which is an essential co-factor for HIV entry and infection of T-cells and other cells of the immune system.
We are using our ZFP technology in the following applications:
Human Therapeutics
• ZFP Therapeutics™
ZFP TFs and ZFNs have the potential to be developed as pharmaceutical products to treat a broad spectrum of diseases through the regulation or modification of disease-related genes in patients.
Enabling Technology Applications
• ZFP TF and ZFN Engineered Cell Lines for the Manufacturing of
Protein Pharmaceuticals
ZFP TF- and ZFN-engineered cell lines can be developed to enhance production yields of protein pharmaceuticals and monoclonal antibodies.
• Agricultural Biotechnology
ZFP TFs can be used to regulate genes and ZFNs to modify or disrupt genes in plants, leading to potential applications in the development of new crops for optimized yield with enhanced nutritional properties."
Every dog and pony show they do has a slide depicting ZFPT's and ZFN's specificity can do compared to RNAI, Mab small molecule and what have you.
Dave
Zack's Analyst interviews highlights: Medimune, Genzyme and Sangamo Biosciences
With another earnings season in the books, did you have any major surprises among the companies in your coverage?
Most of the biotech companies I cover are small-cap biotech. Earnings releases are usually non-events for them. Investors are most concerned about the clinical developments and cash-burn rate for these small-cap, development-stage biotech companies.
Among the companies with product sales, actual sales in the first quarter were generally in-line with our estimates. Two companies are exceptions. MedImmune's (Nasdaq: MEDI) Synagis sales were $507 million in the first quarter, which was $22 million over our estimate of $485 million. As a result, EPS for the first quarter was $0.66 per share versus our $0.50 per share estimate. Genzyme's (Nasdaq: GENZ) product sales in the first quarter were $847 million, $24 million over our estimate of $850 million, though EPS was in line with our estimate due to higher operating expenses offsetting the higher revenue.
What names do you like in particular, currently? And why?
I am very optimistic on Sangamo Biosciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: SGMO). I have a Buy rating on Sangamo based on its unique platform technology and promising pipeline. SGMO developed Zinc Finger DNA-binding protein technology (ZFP), and has a decent pipeline targeting unmet medical needs. The company has a few drug candidates in phase I and phase II clinical trials targeting diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, HIV and brain cancer. SGMO's unique proprietary technology distinguishes itself from the average struggling pharmaceutical companies developing "me too" drugs. This technology has attracted some big pharmaceutical companies for collaboration and makes it an ideal buyout target for acquirers. Our target price is $13.
Re GSK. The NEJM article is a PR disaster. In my opinion Joe Citizen will think a meta-analysis is more accurate than trials. Individual investors will stay away from the shares in droves for years. What a shame.
In scientific circles the NEJM will take a big credibility hit that will take years to overcome. Also, just my opinion.
Certainly Avandia is a good drug. Not the best for most patients, perhaps. But a good, proven med.
Dave
blade re your friends who shorted after the meeting. If they continued to maintain their positions without hedging as they watched the share price quadruple they are nuts or have big balls.
Dave
Re GSK 10 bil seems right. Attorneys will be microsearching for evidence as to when the company noticed the trend etc.
For Merck and Amlyn/Lily add about a bil a year in earnings and increase the PE multiple accordingly. It's a windfall for competitors.
Dave