Replies to post #88231 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

SemBioSys was undone by the failure of Exubera.

“Huh?” you may be thinking. SBS never had a business relationship with PFE—or with any company in the inhaled-insulin arena.

However, the business impetus for SBS’s lead insulin program was that the worldwide demand for insulin was supposedly on a hockey-stick growth trajectory and that demand could be met only by using new production methods such as SBS’s transgenic plants.

The growth trajectory for insulin that SBS depicted in its investor presentations was attributable, in part, to increasing global affluence and the attendant increase in the number of people with type-2 diabetes. However, the major growth driver behind SBS’s hockey-stick graph was the extremely poor bioavailability of inhaled insulin. If Exubera and its offshoots had taken hold in the marketplace, the worldwide demand for insulin would have increased astronomically.

Instead, inhaled insulin is a discredited concept and the market for injected insulin drugs is steadily moving from ordinary insulin to insulin analogs. SBS thus found itself owning a novel production method for a substance (ordinary insulin) whose demand is in a permanent state of decline.

[drbio45]

20 tons of safflower is not tons of commercial grade product

[mcbio]

Re: Sembiosys PR

After rereading the Sembiosys PR several times, it strikes me as unusual and perhaps it underscores some irony in SBS' apparent success.

The PR, IMO , comes off sounding like a weak attempt to draw attention to itself, with nothing new to say.

I would just add that it strikes me as a desperate plea to MDCO for MDCO to partner with them to provide necessary validation of their technology and, more importantly, much needed capital. They effectively come right out in the PR and say that they can help MDCO get to where they need to in producing their ApoA1, in addition to having the ability to manufacture their own ApoA1. Whether MDCO believes that to be true and that it needs such assistance from Sembiosys is of course another story.

So what's the problem and why is the stock down 90% over past 2 yrs? Despite their success at producing literally tons of commercial grade product, they don't have a route to market, they don't have a partner, and, now I gather, they don't own the intellectual property to develop apo A-1. So, it seems to me that the fate and the value of the company lies in the hands of MDCO. It could still be a home-run, but if they felt secure, I don't think they would be issuing a PR like that.

I'm not sure where you get that Sembiosys doesn't have the intellectual property to develop ApoA1. I would imagine they do have the necessary IP backing their own production methods of ApoA1 (they obviously don't have MDCO's patents); the big question is whether or not MDCO (or others) believes they need to utilize Sembiosys' manufacturing methods or if they can resolve the manufacturing issues on their own or by utilizing some other third party. Sembiosys could be a home-run of course if MDCO or some other party does partner with them, but the company hasn't provided any evidence in the past of being able to land a lucrative partnership so I'm not sure that's a bet I want to take.