With respect to alternative AIDS therapies or vaccines: take a look at a condition like Type I Diabetes. I have carefully followed the research since 1975. Over twenty years later, none of the highly publicized and touted therapies, beyond old insulin have emerged- not a single one. Although my parallel is probably flawed, I agree with you and others - a lot of well intentioned ( and not so ) will hype the next cure for AIDS as being around the corner. Ask anyone engaged in research, ten years is not, at all, a long time for getting the next level or even the first level of break through therapy to market. Examples of monumental recent Phase III failures: Allergies, Sceptic shock sybndrome, hepatitis, etc. etc.etc. ( the list is quite depressingly long). The point I am making is that AGPH is clearly under valued, based on its robust actual, and fairly reliably predictable revenue stream. It is as if the market totally discounts the classic valuation criteria, typicaly employed to value Biotechs. Mike Murphy of CTSL has a credible model for valuing biotechs - without eanings. I wonder if anyone can post their opinion of AGPH valuation, based on his model, discounting VIRACEPT revenues. It should compare favorably with companies like ISIS, VICAL and Vertex- companies with no earnings. In other words, AGPH should justify a very high percentage of its current depressed price based on its drug pipeline alone.
Good luck to those of you who are invested in AGPH. |
