Couple points which stuck out during Missling's answers/discussion on the panel today:
1. Data (through data mining) will drive the approvals and deals going forward.
2. He spoke about the factor of each patient's quality of life being more important than looking at numbers. Quality v quantitative aspects. I think this dovetails to the approach they are taking with the AD trial by including remarks on observed patient improvements in a slide in the last presentation. These are a form of "results" though not the number form traditionally relied upon. He touched on the fact that these may have a more significant impact in the lives of patients, caregivers, and society. He mentioned that the Cures Act has a portion included where patients basically assess themselves (perhaps along with caregivers) to give input about any improvement in quality they are feeling and he thinks that is important to the future of providing patients treatments which they perceive as beneficial.
3. He emphasized better deals (bigger, more money deals) take longer to structure and require more shareholder patience. He thinks the reward is worth it because deals are bigger and will continue to be bigger although later in the development stage. I agree because imo anyone can sell pretty much anything on the cheap.
4. Talked about "activist investors". He feels they think of their interests but it is management's job to do what's best for the company and maximize shareholder value over long term.
5. He mentioned that smaller biotechs with large portfolios have to rely more heavily on funding from grants and other sources along with some dilution but that is the least favorable although often a reality or necessity.
6. He stated that Big Pharma has a much bigger ship to steer and is almost forced to do things a certain way as opposed to small innovative bio companies. But, he granted that Big Pharma realizes this difference in approach and is aware of the benefits which can come from "tucking in" or outsourcing some novel R & D approaches to smaller acquisitions.
7. The woman representing Bain often made references to M&A "gems" being obvious to Big Pharma to augment their pipelines or solidify a focused market (she mentioned MS indication first...). Each time she referred to these "gems" she gestured toward CM almost in a demonstrative way, imo. (Seemed to be lots of body language).
8. Everyone agreed that companies need a core focus (their so-called "space") in which to get a decent market share, as though there were unwritten agreements that certain spaces would be traded off and each BP could have its share of the entire healthcare pie without much stepping on toes. A few vie for the same space (obvious AD or CNS, cancer or oncology), but those will line up or shake out.
Missling comes across as very knowledgeable of the entire sector and what he is doing especially. He is poised and confident without being cocky or dismissive. I think that is because he was never a CEO of a BP giving razzle-dazzle, content free remarks or answers. (At one point, the other CEO who was once CEO of a much larger company offered to provide a "typical CEO answer" to one of the questions. Very telling - I don't think Missling has a "typical CEO answer" to anything.
He comes across as very genuine, and insightful. His answers were carefully thought out and tried to provide honest, intelligent, often unconventional answers which show how his mind works - outside the box, but very meticulous about strategy and facts.
They say once you can fake sincerity, you've got it made. Our CEO cannot fake sincerity - or if so, and he's that good, he deserves every cent. But anyone who could call him a scammer just has not seen him speak. Period. (Pretty sure the whole notion of a scam due to his salary or his girlfriend or the company's origins, or whatever, are jealousy of his success, or just a roundabout way to bash the stock...my opinion. They used to call the trial a scam because of the design, sample size and results, but I don't hear that anymore. Hmmmmm?)
Even though he spoke in general terms regarding the future of the Pharma industry, everything he said applied directly to Anavex (with no specific tie ins, pumps, etc.) He held our information close to the vest, stock symbol - wise, but...
if every word out of his mouth were a tree, he sure didn't need to tell me that we were in a forest. I could see the forest from the many trees he pointed out all around. (And not because I WANTED to see a forest. Go back and rewatch if you doubt.)
Forests are lush, and green, and growing! We have tons of trees; we are a forest!
IMO. And apologies if this was too long and not enough spaces - I tried to break things up where I could but did not want to separate segments at the risk of confusion or losing a thread.
