SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MLNM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: software salesperson who wrote (632)1/24/2001 6:16:41 PM
From: keokalani'nui  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 3044
 
Thank you ss.

>>(ix) very high on calp technology<<

I take it this was provoked by a question? Was there more to the answer? Appreciate any more info.

--Wilder



To: software salesperson who wrote (632)1/24/2001 8:28:19 PM
From: Miljenko Zuanic  Respond to of 3044
 
ss,

Regards the MLNM profitability many knows that very few bios have reach that point with single (or two) product.

IMW, MLNM approach is broad based. Increase license and partnership revenue (which will pay for all or most R&D), and parallel push in-house programs. So, it is not question how and when they will be profitable ('03 or '04). What will be revenue growth after they reach profitability point in more important? This is why today investors pay large premium in stock price.

<<(v) m&a for products and technologies>>

My opinion is that they will do deal like LKST. Near and long term deep pipelines with significant expertise in the specific field.

BTW, thanks for CC note. Very informative.

Miljenko



To: software salesperson who wrote (632)1/24/2001 9:14:18 PM
From: scaram(o)uche  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 3044
 
5. impressions - - sounded like the analyst community bought into the profitability model. i'd be interested in other listeners' takes on the profitability discussion

They can (and, IMO, will) generate the NMEs at that rate.

Partnership models will be 50:50 for the foreseeable future.

The LKST deal was a "win-win model".

This all adds up to big-time leverage. If they can make some additional CEOs pay attention to the win-win potential and add breadth to the late-stage pipe, they'll add even more leverage. Pretty soon, MLNM-like vision and MLNM-like guts will add up to a real threat, even to the very strongest of pharmas.

The proposed "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" route to profitability? Every divisional president known to man will line up for a view. Levin, Tepper et al. will look for strong sales growth, complemented by a weak pipe.

Why will it work? They have 300M plus rolling through their research labs. Their research is MUCH more efficient than the pharma partners. Assume that resources on the pharma side for any 50:50 deals are about 2X (I've worked in both a pharma organization - Bayer - and biotechs). That's a lot of $$$ thrown at highly efficient research, where many pharmas are way behind on the learning curve.

A couple of years ago (or so) -- here at SI -- I said that I considered MLNM to be one of the top three research organizations, worldwide. There was some scoffing, but no LOL. I doubt that many would scoff now.

Markets will become much more fragmented, and blockbusters will have shorter market life spans. MLNM is perfectly situated to be a big winner. The "snowball" model for the anti-inflammatory business evolved EXACTLY as Levin predicted. As a result of such vision, there are young senior scientists who, despite having arrived late, are sporting options worth a bundle. MLNM is going to do everything in their power to bring the Microsoft model of motivation to biotech, and they're batting 100% thus far.

A clever idea for venture capitalists? Find the correct munch companies, and "buy out" the CEOs and Boards. Install MLNM-friendly puppets.

:-)

i'd be interested in other listeners' takes

Oooops, haven't listened yet. This was all off the cuff BS.

Never mind.

Again, as for each quarter, thanks for your report!