V1,
My focus has always been on the neuros. I see Gliadel as a narrowly focused indication that Guilford could, over a number of years, build to the point where a significant portion of the burn rate was covered. The broader brain tumor indication was a step in that direction and, longer term, so is the Taxol variation, in, IMA, a much bigger (and more competitive) market. I guess I considered the cancer market more of an insurance policy than the basis for building the company.
Contrary to the sentiment I've seen in much of the press (including Edward's article), I think Amgen, at this stage of its existence, is a tremendous plus. If ever a company had something to prove, its Amgen. They need another blockbuster to re-burnish their image as "Biotech #1". And I don't see a lot of candidates in their pipeline with that potential
IMO, Guilford is in the enviable position of letting Amgen "do its thing". In the meantime, their scientists are paid to push the neuroimmunophilins to the limit while the development and marketing groups focus on the stroke drug and expanding the cancer markets I alluded to earlier. Of no small solace is the horde of cash they have (~$165 million), so they can even tolerate a misstep or even two. I'll bet there are a lot of biotech CEO's who would LOVE to have their problems.
Ted
P.S. I hope there are more yahoos like the turkey who dumped his stock on Tuesday. I don't think people realize how one misguided soul with more money than brains can depress a stock without apparent cause. |
