Replies to post #87781 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Re: OGXI CYCC

Yes but is a double or a little more than that 1 year down the road out of the question? I think not if they find a partner but I'm more concerned about if they don't.

A double is possible, of course, but I just don't like chasing biotechs. This one has had a hell of a run up from a $25 million market cap to almost $200 million today. I just much prefer to go long something that is beaten down and hoping to go on such a run.

CYCC hasn't advertised looking for a partner in any of their PR's or presentations. I think I like the fact that mgmt doesn't try to pump the company but I'm not sure whether this indicates that they will try to finance on their own at least the AML trial. Will companies be willing to sponsor a trial based on single arm data?

You are correct in that there hasn't been any discussion of partnering sapacitabine that I can recall. I would prefer that there be some discussion to know that there is legitimate interest in the compound from a prospective partner. I think you can generally talk about partnering discussions without necessarily crossing that "pump" line. So, I would like to hear this at some point.

I will say that the president made a comment during one presentation that big pharma generally isn't interested in partnering for an AML drug because they perceive it as a smaller opportunity. The president tried to counter this by saying that sapacitabine has the potential to transform AML into more of a chronic disease and I implied that to mean more patient time on drug equates to a much bigger revenue opportunity than originally perceived. I'm not sure I buy the chronic reference as these elderly AML patients are very sick and it's not like they are going to be able to live a normal life by being on sapacitabine. But, the drug has shown good 1-year survival numbers, at least as it compares to historical controls. And again, it has the chance to be the first oral compound for AML (and possibly MDS).

To answer your last question, it's hard to say if they'll get a partner for the AML indication given what the president alluded to, but I would think it's possible based on their data. So, dilution is a clear risk as they will need to raise money soon if they can't find a partner and may have the need to go it alone for Phase 3 AML/MDS. If the results of sapacitabine in solid tumors (NSCLC) are positive next year, that should greatly enhance their chances of finding a partner, given that this would be a much bigger market.