News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Idunno

11/19/22 7:18 AM

#535432 RE: thermo #535429

… “they’re all willing to change their minds when presented with evidence.” Evidence, indeed. My experience is similar.
icon url

hope4patients

11/19/22 8:00 AM

#535434 RE: thermo #535429

Thermo,
Thanks for posting your thoughts here. What is your take on valuation if the company can scale to 12,000 patients per yr at Sawston after approval in the UK assuming a price per patient of about $210,000?

My fairly simplistic model suggests a valuation of about $38B using a multiple of 15. Obviously this doesn’t include any value for Direct. Would really appreciate your thoughts. Thanks
icon url

dmb2

11/19/22 8:36 AM

#535448 RE: thermo #535429

Thermo,

Based on the status of this investment I was wondering if, given the scale of your group's investment here, whether you would be willing to share some financial modeling guidelines you use.
In my experience as a pharma industry person I am used to calculations like 10 x EBITDA or 3 x peak sales when valuing a company or new product with peak sales being a key that is often not understood.

There are several dynamics here that can limit the valuation such as time though it is difficult to imagine the valuation of a company that can address all solid tumors. The IP is limited as mfg patents are less secure and competition will be fierce and probably already ramping up in this technology space given these results. Time will be of the essence now and NWBO will need to move more rapidly to their platform development strategy. There needs to be direct correlation between the MOA of DCVax and other solid cancers to enable approval risk probabilities, which still needs some deep study.

Also, I see a strategic partnership as the probable move for NWBO to allow time to accelerate development and demonstrate value, though the partnership may be very profitable for NWBO.

Any thoughts you are willing to share would be appreciated, and sorry if you already have and I missed them.

Good luck to you and all here, every week is now looking more and more interesting
icon url

xoma4578

11/19/22 9:26 AM

#535466 RE: thermo #535429

Thermo,

Happy holidays and hope your brother is doing well.

Exciting times ahead of NWBO.
icon url

VuBru

11/19/22 9:59 AM

#535479 RE: thermo #535429

Thermo - Thanks for your contributions to the board. Just curious, do you and your group have other companies you are particularly interested In currently?
icon url

Doc logic

11/19/22 10:00 AM

#535481 RE: thermo #535429

thermo,

Those I know, and I believe most longs, would say we are blessed to have you and your honest opinions based on experience here amongst us. You and your brother have been an encouragement to many more than you know. May the Lord bless richly you, your group and all those like minded for all that you have done to support the work of Dr. Linda Liau, this company and all those associated with the advancement of this work. You have helped bring the “new day” forward. Best wishes.
icon url

learningcurve2020

11/19/22 10:09 AM

#535487 RE: thermo #535429

Although the verification is very good to see, my skepticism still lies within total resection survival. Are we really to believe eliminating the tumor means so little in terms of additional OS? If that's the case, I'm wondering about the outcomes of the study trial and if they saw the same survival figures?


I disagree with the reports 60 months 5.7% SOC OS figure. I believe with TTF and other experimental treatments these days that figure is closer to 10%.


Idunno, don't get ahead of yourself. Legacy shareholders are still in the dumpster. The stock has lost ground since the run two years ago. I actually feel bad for all of you who so boldly held on. You deserved a stock move where new investors were buying at a real premium, but it never materialized. Boggles the mind one can wait five years for the "Big event" and see so little action. I guess that's what a billion and a half outstanding can do in a lousy biotech market. But not even a buyout offer or a partnership announcement to accompany this journal report seems like a real slap.

And, I still don't see anyone here talking about proper transparency on the CDMO, better governance in terms of an independent CFO and Chair, or even demanding quarterly calls.



icon url

ilovetech

11/19/22 9:48 PM

#535820 RE: thermo #535429

I understand the importance of Jama for the regulators and the scientific community, but it's not like the regulators are sequestered like a jury and not allowed to look at additional data like the phase 2 combo! Let's be honest, it behooves anyone in such a position to appreciate more not less data.

ILT