Replies to post #103387 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Look no further than Genentech for evidence on this subject. I commented on this three years ago in #msg-16127025:

One analyst asked why DNA projects that R&D will be only 18% of sales in 2007 vs a percentage of sales in the low 20s a few years ago. One obvious answer is that DNA’s absolute sales have grown immensely during the past few years so that the new, lower percentage of sales represents a very much larger absolute layout for R&D.

But CEO Arthur Levinson gave an even better answer: there are only so many good scientists available for hire and DNA does not want to dilute its talent pool by hiring mediocre people.

I found this non-politically-correct assertion to be a refreshing admission that there are huge differences in productivity between scientists (as there are, of course, between individuals in other vocations). People say that DNA has been lucky to be so successful in the past few years. Well, luck did play a role to some degree—but so did skillful hiring.

Turning to the well-documented problems of Big Pharma in the R&D arena, Levinson stated that these companies have failed in large measure because they hired some of the mediocre scientists whom DNA passed on.

[Regulardoc]

Rather than "dollars flowing," which I certainly hope is the case, the new job postings may be related to renewed interest in MNTA technology from other companies due to the validation received from the FDA.

On another note, I have to echo some of the frustrations related to not a peep out of management during the stock slide. Clearly they will have no knowledge of TEVA's status and the insider sales are truly paltry, and in fact, management have been the biggest losers over the last 4 weeks given their holdings and options.

Would at least be nice for some sort of update, or at least the proverbial, canned mention that "sales are tracking plan and we are quite satisfied with the launch after 5 weeks on the market."

Would also support other comments that MNTA appears to have superior technology when compared to TEVA (although we don't really know anything about TEVA's technology. they do not seem to have enoxaparin as fulthe groundbreaking approval that we had in July, that the FDA would rather go with the "best generic copy" rather than a "good generic copy."

Might just have to fire up my time machine and see what the future holds.