These are my words and inferences. Could easily have misunderstood the words, and very likely I will draw the wrong conclusions.
Much time was spent on explaining the delay in 2 promised VIP deals.
Taylor, who BTW sounds like a sweet-hearted earnest kid, suggested that the breadth of applications (multi-indication) per drug candidate and complexity (breadth of the functions/markets potentially served by phmcgnmcs) caused the conversations to shift away from the simple model they were pitching: from a pilot, single drug/single indication POP study as originally contemplated to a multiyear, drug portfolio in many indications. The strategic significance of these broader conversations are being chewed on by both sides. (I note that the BI collaboration is supposed to be the proof of principle study and it is hardly finished.) Anyway, IMO it's kinda unerving that no one can immediately see their way to a clear business arrangement and may point to the need for the biggest pharma to do this business in house.
If I was big pharma, I might be thinking "whoa, if this technology will touch everything (clinical, marketing, and research) how could little vgnx deliver what we need, let alone the rest of the industry...we better have this capability in-house and let's start by buying these guys since they don't have any rosetta-type entanglements yet."
Taylor says there has been an acceleration in pharma inquiries. There are very few external partners available. I had the feeling vgnx is invited to participate in every RFP. He senses broad top-down acceptance for phrmcgnmcs, and it has required extensive education of the clinical, research and marketing (already sold!) departments. Takes long time.
Taylor points out only 5-6 phcgnmcs deals have been done in last 2 years and vgnx accounts for 1/2. Calls recent gnsc deal validation.
Overall, not a great call. And stock still cheap.
Burn will be kept to $5-6m per quarter. Meant to be reassuring, but that sounded like a lot to me.
Wilder |
