Any thoughts? Me? :-)
I don't see AGPH trending down. I think 100 is a done deal, heading into a FDA advisory committee meeting.
What's new in HIV to keep AGPH moving? Two PI studies! Even Merck is climbing on-board. Keep an eye on Glaxo...... they have the most to lose, and they'll throw every political and marketing move in the book at Roche/Agouron. The more publicity they throw, the more scared they'll be. Glaxo has blown it big-time, teaming up with Biota Holdings for flu in the face of Roche/Gilead and losing to Roche/Agouron in the race for HIV market share. They're in a position where, to keep momentum rolling in their anti-viral program, they'll need to canibalize BCHXF/3TC for HIV. Don't run out and short BCHXF, however, as we still have HBV to keep 3TC alive and _well_.
What's new in cancer to keep AGPH rolling? Phase III results from Thymitaq, and, more importantly, initiation of phase II trials for the GART inhibitor (AGPH's and AGPH's alone) and the MMP inhibitor (which will mean that Roche will be throwing more money at AGPH).
The preclinical pipeline is STRONG. Keep an eye peeled, as the market cap of AGPH still looks, IMO, like a bargain to some pharmas.
This is really interesting. It was assumed, a couple of years ago, that there would never be "another Amgen". What was not foreseen was that a few biotechs would sneak through, largely due to the inspired vision of a few CEOs, and that they would put big-time hurts on pharmas. It was not foreseen that, while the market cap of biotechs would go up, the market caps of pharmas would be endangered. I feel big take-outs on the horizon, take-outs that are defensive. If pharma doesn't respond soon to acquire some of these companies with later-stage efforts, the AGPHs and GILDs of the world are going to start spending profits in direct competition. Chiron and Amgen wasted a good deal of their money, Chiron on some pretty mediocre protein therapeutics and some downright lousy vaccines, and Amgen on "invented here syndrome".
I still think that we'll eventually see a deal for 49% of AGPH, and I'm already looking for complementary technolgies that they could spend some hot cash on.
One thing that has become painfully obvious in the past two years....... big pharma lacks vision. I say this not to brag, but to illustrate this point........ about two years ago, I was shouting that Roche or Merck should purchase a hunk of GILD and a hunk of AGPH, with an eye toward eventual consolidation. We now have Roche throwing money at both companies. This money is being thrown as an equal, not as a "big pharma" marketing partner. Both AGPH and GILD are getting whomping sums to support research and clinicals, and they're walking with _shared_ marketing rights. The truth is that Roche waited too long. However, they're in better shape, IMO, than Glaxo and Merck.
Then you have small companies aligning (e.g., ArQule and Aurora). These alignments will move at a pace that makes pharma barf. What's the really cool part??? When these alignments start to pay, the GILDs and AGPHs of the world will be there to compete with Merck et al. for the best deals. Biotech has evolved from an industry with proteins, in search of indications, to a pharmaceutical chemistry juggernaut. Biotechs have learned to out-pharma the pharmas, to put it simply. Find your companies now, as the playing field is going to be level in about 10 years.
So, I don't share your opinion. I see little rationale for Agouron to stop short of a market cap of 1.5 billion, relatively near-term. If FDA approved nelfinavir, can they realistically say no to Viracept?
Disclaimer: I own AGPH, and I'm wildly jazzed about my chances for near-term and long-term appreciation. Do your own homework. |
