On page C10 of today’s WSJ, Karen Richardson, author of “Heard on the Street”, turns to Michael King at R&R for this explanation of Genentech’s recent decline:
“Some analysts aren’t so optimistic about Genentech’s near-term growth prospects, however, and lament investors’ fixation on Avastin as a driver of earnings and stock price. Instead investors need to look at Genentech’s whole array of treatments. ‘People need to come back to a more fundamental story, which is a portfolio of products,’ says Michael King Jr., an analyst at Rodman & Renshaw, a small investment bank that specializes in biotech stocks.”
I wonder if Michael King knows of any emerging biotech companies with a deep pipeline of compelling products?
I wonder if the WSJ would find it newsworthy if Michael King published a report in November on a new anti-PS drug moving through Phase II trials that is showing dramatic efficacy in both anti-tumor and anti-viral applications, has completed advanced primate testing with leading NIH/CHAVI/Gates scientists, and is backed up by a large pipeline of other products (including 2C3 that may work better than Avastin).
Naahh. Would never happen. The WSJ would never pay attention to a story like that endorsed by an analyst like Michael King!!!
________________________________
P.S. One of the best indications Bavi is actually working (besides the raw clinical data) is that management chose to dilute by selling stock at these low prices rather than dilute by doing a licensing before Ph II data is in. Think about the confidence you have to have in your drug to raise $22 million at these prices. They could have gotten through the year-end audit with much less in the bank, as they have done in prior years, simply by scaling back their clinical programs. Instead, they chose to go full speed ahead with SIX new Ph II trials. You can be sure they see something in the Bavi data and the CHAVI studies that the bashers on this board are missing.
