Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Catalytica Energy Systems, Inc. (CESI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Erik T who wrote (1419)	12/4/1999 11:49:00 AM
From: smh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1514

ERIK, I agree with your analysis. Increased earnings from the pharm side are built in, and I look forward to further expansion and a bright future based on industry trends. However, I sense a rapidly deteriorating confidence in the future of XONON (we need the long awaited announcement). My worst fears about the buying behavior of the consumers of this technology appear to be coming true. I can tell you - the generation business is not populated with technological innovators. While the Silicon Valley demonstration is really good, I don't think it is nearly enough. Further, the incentive to achieve <3 ppm Nox, as opposed to 9 ppm really is not there, yet. My reluctant conclusion is that the risk/reward profile for X as perceived by the target audience doesn't cut it -- so far. As far as GE is concerned, they may be more interested in making sure that no one gets ahead of them than in aggressively pushing the technology right now. My biggest disappointment to date is that Enron, which has the vision, incentive, and means, has apparently done little to make it happen. After all they have a significant equity position and a seat on the board I believe. I think Xonon will be successful, and at some point the herd instinct will take over, leading to exponential earnings growth. Ultimately, full value will not be assigned by the street until pharm and combustion are split up, as I see it. BTW, No - I am not a short - Check previous posts. I will be loading up also if we go down from here. I invite anyone so inclined to comment on what I have posted. Regards SMH

To: Erik T who wrote (1419)	12/8/1999 1:58:00 AM
From: Erik T	Respond to of 1514

For comparison, Chirex,one of CTAL's competitors has a current market cap of $ 529 million I guess I shouldn't use Chirex as a comparison anymore. Monday December 6, 6:01 am Eastern Time Company Press Release SOURCE: ChiRex Inc. ChiRex Announces Shortfall in 2000 Demand From GlaxoWellcome Resulting In the Need to Rephase Supply Under the 1997 Agreement Reduction in Near-Term Demand for Two Intermediates Will Negatively Affect ChiRex FY2000 Financial Performance STAMFORD, Conn., Dec. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- ChiRex Inc. (Nasdaq: CHRX - news) announced today that revised 2000 demand for two pharmaceutical ingredients under a 1997 supply agreement with GlaxoWellcome will fall short of contract expectation. The impact of this revision for the year 2000 is expected to be a reduction of $28.0 million in revenues, with a resulting reduction of $0.80 per share in net earnings, primarily to be reflected in the first quarter of 2000. The companies have agreed jointly to identify alternative business targeted to offset the value of the lost 2000 production over the remaining three years of the supply agreement. GlaxoWellcome indicated that demand for these two intermediates from ChiRex in 2000 has declined from previously forecast levels. The reduction in volumes is due to two factors. Firstly, extra stock has been manufactured to minimise the risk of potential disruption to supply over the millennium. Secondly, additional manufacture was carried out to ensure supply continuity over product launches in markets around the world. Volumes in the launch period are very difficult to predict accurately due to the timing of regulatory approvals and a conservative view is therefore taken of stock requirements based on the best case scenario of early regulatory approvals. GlaxoWellcome commented that ``The long leadtime to re-allocate product to ChiRex makes it difficult at this time to nominate replacement products for the intended quantities that will not be purchased in 2000. GlaxoWellcome agrees to undertake with ChiRex a Strategic Product and Asset Review and to use our joint best endeavours to identify opportunities to purchase products in 2000 to compensate ChiRex in accordance with contractual obligations. It is intended to complete this review as soon as possible, and in any event before 30 June 2000.' Dr. Alan Bell, Director of International Actives Supply, GlaxoWellcome stated ``We have worked closely with ChiRex for many years to our mutual benefit. ChiRex is, and will remain, an important partner in our future operations.' Mr. Michael A. Griffith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ChiRex Inc. stated ``While we regret the short-term negative impact of this variation, we are committed to GlaxoWellcome for the long-term. Our supply agreement had always contemplated potential variations in the forecast requirement for these two products. Consistent with the terms of the agreement, we will be working with GlaxoWellcome to identify and introduce replacement products to offset the value of the lost 2000 production during the remaining three years of the supply agreement.'