InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

bladerunner1717

10/19/06 9:43 PM

#1574 RE: Aiming4 #1572

aiming,

That's a really good point you're making, it seems to me, about Lilly.

I remember when GENR longs--I was one of them--thought that PFE was really dumb in not licensing Squalamine from GENR for AMD. It turned out, of course, that PFE was right, even though Levitt and the GENR longs were convinced to the contrary. Of course, it could be argued that GENR never really had solid enough data to begin with and probably--Garren thinks that the final nail has not been planted in the Squalamine coffin--never will have. And it could be argued that Lilly is no Pfizer. However, at this point, it does seem that Lilly is incredibly stupid or incredibly arrogant or both. Or that COR longs are as self-deluded as GENR longs used to be.

I think Stoll wants even stronger data for CX717 in ADHD. Hence, the Phase IIb. But with the necessity of another Phase II and the in-house licensing strategy of a late-stage non-Ampakine and the desire of COR management to have another (low-impact?) Ampakine in the clinic in the next 3-6 months and no partnership in sight, then we can expect to get royally screwed (diluted at a much lower price with still more warrants) in the next round of financing. (I bet Jim Haynes is really happy these days...not)

In the "I told-you-so" category, remember that I told Neuro and Davidal that it was crazy to expect a partnership in 2006 or even the first quarter of 2007. 1H07 is even optimistic now, and that depends on the FDA fully and unequivocally lifting the clinical hold on CX717.

It doesn't look like it will be a very merry Christmas in the COR household.

On the other hand, the macro-economic environment looks more promising. September and October are traditionally the worst months of the year for the Market, yet this year these two months have been remarkably good for the Market. No doubt this has alot to do with the interest rate environment and the movement of capital out of real estate and commodities into equities. Some of this speculative money will surely find its way into biotech, eventually. I'm in the camp of those who think the Fed stance will change the beginning of next year, with even the possiblity of a lowering of interest rates as the possibility of a housing recession-led general recession looms. I don't see the Fed raising at all again this year, especially in light of the Philly Beige Book report today and the continuing decline in oil prices. Traditionally, the Novemeber-April time period has been strong for biotechs. (I don't see the November elections having much of an effect on the overall Market, even if the Dems claim control of the House. It might be argued that it is even better for biotechs and BP to have more Dem strength in Congress, since it is now the Republicans who are holding up von Eschenbach's approval, an approval that I think will help biotech more than most people realize.)

If I were more of a trader, I'd probably sell now and wait to buy back until after the shitty financing that is surely coming. But I'll probably just ride it out.


Bladerunner
icon url

neuroinv

10/20/06 8:06 PM

#1596 RE: Aiming4 #1572

I doubt that Lilly's stance is causing share price weakness. I have come to believe there is deliberate manipulation going on to free up some cheap shares.

I agree completely with the risk Lilly is taking. I am going to continue tweaking them in print about the absurdity of this stance--apparently my past criticism did catch their attention.

It's not the 30 million upfront they are trying to save, it is the 12-20% royalties later on, which on a billion per year, just as an example, adds up to real money, really fast. But it's still dumb, Lilly could end up with nothing.

NeuroInvestment