Rman, Stan:
I agree with you guys. Honest. The argument for a short is compelling. However.... just imaging this "what if"......
Sales estimates of $4 billion/year start showing up for V, and Rathman says that the ICOS PDE5 inhibitor is looking like it's superior.
Imagine that there's a new float put under the issue, and that one of every two reporters in the world starts to hound those in the clinical trials, asking "seeing blue?" or "got that silly extra centimeter?"
I'd rather be long than short Monday morning.
It's not like Rathman to drive the stock, but..... as you indicated, they will need money, and he may feel justified to drive it a bit, that they've got a good shot at some of that MED pie. I was not surprised to hear that lurker McCamant was saying "reduced side effects relative to Viagra", as that was the rumor that I had heard. But, I *was* surprised to hear Rathman quoted as saying such later in the day.
Rman...... Monday morning..... CNBC was saying that he'll be on. I've heard him talk about the extensive testing in phase I, and his casual style makes you want to believe.
We *will* have some biotechs that get lucky and break through to independent pharma status. There's a new world of pharmaceuticals out there, and an accommodative FDA. I was out there in early '95 predicting that Merck's marketing muscle wouldn't be a big factor for Agouron and Viracept, that, given similar efficacies, it would be side-effects and convenience that would carry the sales. Same here.... if a PDE5 inhibitor clears phase III with (1) Viagra selling without significant concerns about toxicity, and (2) decent efficacy and reduced side effects relative to Viagra, the company that makes it will bury Pfizer. It won't take much of a marketing budget at all.
ICOS may only need a finance bridge to independence. Let's see what Rathman says Monday morning. I'd play it conservative, if I were him.
Anybody know what Glaxo's cut is? I'm guessing under 5%.
Rick
|
