Thread,
Finally got the time to listen to the CC.
Regarding management spending most of their time talking about the short position and stock price. They were asked three times. Total response time to that issue, five minutes at most. Are they pissed at the shorts and do they want longs to put their CLPA certs in their cash acounts? You bet. Towanicki said he watched the "manipulation" on Level II. Hopefully he'll spend his time in a more productive manner (but who among us hasn't played a bit of solitaire on company time?).
About ten times the amount of time spent on that issue was spent on other issues. The science, the trials, the ODAC, important dates, this was what the majority of the time was spent upon.
They seemed to dodge a question regarding future financing needs. It is probably hard to answer at this point, anyway. They certainly have enough cash to commercialize for FAP and for a couple of indications with larger markets. Some of those indications can be addressed with one trial, and then approval sought, given the safety data already submitted for similar populations (all cancer patients), dosages, and titrations. This means they can expand to other indications in one to two years. And that's not even mentioning potential off-label use. No mention was made of further partnering deals, and that implies they think they have the wherewithal to fund the trials themselves and keep more of the profits. This could mean further financing and dilution, but if commercialization goes smoothly, I think such financing will be minimal.
Doctors and laymen alike seemed to like the data, and a couple of questions concerning methodology were explained to my satisfaction and that of the analyst (whose name I didn't catch, I think it was the guy after Heather Morris).
Aptosyn is to be priced at somewhat less than $2,000 per patient per year, positioning it competitively with the oral prostate cancer medications currently on the market. Cost of goods was not disclosed. They figure between 45,000 - 75,000 patients on the three major continents for FAP. The drug must be taken for the life of the patient to work as preventive.
Celebrex goes before ODAC for a similar indication on the same day, a fact not lost on gastro docs. But Celebrex data for this indication is weaker, and the methodology is flawed. Only one area of the rectum was monitored, but the mucosa in there seems to grow polyps at at different rates in different areas. Good methodology requires looking at the whole thing. Thus celebrex doesn't seem to be much of a threat.
I thought it was a very strong call. I completely agree that the company is way better off than when it was in the twenties. Perhaps overpriced then, but not now, IMHO. I think CLPA's chances are as good as IMCLs, maybe better, and I'm a happy owner of that one, too. Main difference is IMCL is going after big indications first, while CLPA is taking a more measured approach. CLPA intends to do more of its own marketing, so growing slowly into it is OK by me. I want the sales division to be experienced for the blockbuster indications.
So Doc, given that roughly one tenth of the call was spent talking about the share price and why it's where it is, what did you find in the call that gives you faith in YOUR position?
Cheers, Tuck |
