Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[sokol]

Thanks, from the article you furnished:

“Lastly, @colinmagowan asked, “Did you track lead asset stage and disease, or say # of therapies in clinical trials when S-3 filed?”

I can see where the questioner is coming from; drug development costs vary by therapeutic areas. Thus, companies working in these areas may need to file larger shelves for more money. Further, the capital markets tend to value later stage assets more highly, as they are presumably closer to market. Late stage clinical trials cost more, too, so perhaps shelf filers and shelf size are related to stage of development.”

My additional comment is that the number of clinicial trials being conducted should be a factor, and I wonder how markets value a large shelf offering of a company with three clinical trials for a CNS drug to treat three CNS diseases.

In any event, see this additional article that points out:

“CNS and anti-infective treatments are the most expensive to develop.......

Clinical development times were highest for CNS and cardiovascular treatments, but clinical costs were lowest (see figure). The reverse was true for anti-infectives and analgesics/anaesthetics....

The difference in returns from each therapeutic area hints at how companies are forming strategy decisions. The ratio of life-cycle worldwide sales for new drugs approved during 1990–1994 to the development costs calculated in the study was greatest for CNS and cardiovascular drugs (see figure), which included big-sellers such as SSRIs and ACE inhibitors. Anti-infectives and analgesics/ anaesthetics fared less well. This difference in profitability could explain companies' decisions on allocation of R&D resources, says Ken Kaitin, Director of the Tufts Center. “Our findings are consistent with a model that suggests R&D efforts have generally shifted towards high net return, and away from low-return therapeutic areas.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd1436

I believe the capital markets will ultimately weigh this shelf offering primarily based on the high return potential of AVXL 2-73 for treating CNS diseases and the stage or stages of development of its trials as well as the fact that Anavex is the most advanced in exploring a promising alternative for treating AD, for example, now that the amyloid plaque removal theory has faded. Anyway, right or wrong, that is how I view the situation.