Replies to post #248072 on Biotech Values

[vinmantoo]

Jake predicted early that ENTA would go down to its IPO price. Nobody else has provided a price estimate. If the price gets close to the IPO price, but does not reach it, then was Jake correct?

No he didn't make that prediction early. He also never acknowledged that the EDP-235 phase 2 data was impressive and better than Paxlovid as it reduced symptoms in a low risk population whereas Paxlovid failed.

[WorstLuck]

Jake predicted early that ENTA would go down to its IPO price. Nobody else has provided a price estimate. If the price gets close to the IPO price, but does not reach it, then was Jake correct?

Mostly yes. It's unlikely to happen unless there is no partnership or one that is 'poor' - which seems to be his base case.

For the last six months I would say that Jake's comments on Enanta have been reasonable.

Jake provided an answer that Enanta should have been able to reveal a partnership at the same time that Enanta revealed the phase 2 data. Seems reasonable. Has this occurred with other companies? I do not think Enanta revealed the data publicly at the earliest time possible.

ENTA said publicly post top-line data that their data room was not up and running yet. That moots the argument about no partnership yet.

Does anybody other than Jake have a time point that could reasonably be expected for announcement of a COVID partnership?

Yes. Several have pointed to September-ish. I personally think that while possible, it is optimistic (early).

I don't like to see personal poking between participants, but I do find value in Jake's comments especially as a matter of examining my own bias.

Further up or further down I am happy that I have not purchased more Enanta. If Enanta's greatness is imminent, then let me see it happen.

Good luck to you. I am personally still of no position, but the banter is interesting.

[Jake2234]

Thanks DC. Lots of balanced thoughts there.

[willyw]

Hi DC. Many valid points. I particularly agree that it's always good to see other's negative thesis.
What do you think about the taunting or redundant posts?

For me the approval landscape is complicated- particularly for covid which has moved from pandemic to endemic and less lethal than earlier. Another, I don't feel that viral load by means of nasal swabs will be a good means of determining efficacy.

One of my complaints is that the posts were edicts; phase 3 could never happen (yet somehow Pfizer's next gen was somehow viable). The posts were invariably negative and little explanation or justification of one's thesis.

Tell me for instance; when did Enanta get the blinded data? At what point would it be possible for Enanta to share that data and under what circumstances would they share?
I would expect based upon the May Phase 2 results Enanta would then have to enter into discussion w/ the FDA to determine Phase 3 design. Would a partner sign on before they knew that outcome? In tandem? There are many moving parts.
I think that it is understood that if there is an agreement then Enanta cannot reveal much; there would have to be a joint announcement first.
--And so for me the absence of information is not proof of anything.
But the underlying thrust of Jake's posts are since there is no announcement, then there is no agreement. The fact is no one knows except insiders.

It HAS been mentioned that these agreements do not happen overnight- but per Jake, they should have been released at the May data reveal.
Reasonable?

In between my reply post and this one I got a text from a friend who has covid- for the first time it would seem. She's asymptomatic.
And she just finished her course of Paxlovid. : )

Thanks, I appreciate your thinking and time you took to post. ~W