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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PlayTheKing who wrote (10489)	8/9/2002 1:56:10 AM
From: Cal Gary	Respond to of 14101

PTK Thanks for the great observations. Tax pools and unaudited statements. Sedars has has the unaudited statements filed. Could the unaudited be due to : - new financing is in the wings with conditions like YE statements? - wrong papers were filed (audited vs unaudited)? - spelling mistake? - auditors are part of cost cutting (that I believe they should be doing. Cost cutting.)? Could the CDN$4.4 million notes due from OXO be - part of the US $37 million purchase (I haven't double checked)? - foregiven? Your observation paints a new perspective: 1) Oxo purchase now amounts to CDN$92 million. In return for $63mm patents and $1mm plant and equipment. Does this mean there is $28mm in goodwill to own 100% OXO shares? Or is the $20mm for 20% already written down and off the books? If so then that leaves $8mm in goodwill. Funny how creative accounting can be. <g> Thanks again for your input.

To: PlayTheKing who wrote (10489)	8/9/2002 3:39:51 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14101

PTK, great post. Pithy. "Y/E financials at this stage mean squat to me as it reflects March 2002 numbers...historical mumbo jumbo." Yes. "Clearly, their primary focus is OXO and not Pennsaid...Assuming a 25x purchase price, minimum, and if WF10 proves to be what we all think it will be, then the minimum price pharma's should be willing to pay is USD$1.5 billion for rights." Yes. Look back at di7026's Patent App post. Look at the therapeutic targets: HCV, asthma, AIDS, prostate cancer, to name a few. WF10 safety - already established. Remaining unknown: efficacy. If P3 efficacy is what we have supposed (even allowing for mitigation of mortality by HAART) then RK has a problem most pharmas can only dream about: can one partner handle it all? The problem is both financial and tactical. $1.5 billion US is not chump change - and some might consider that price low. There's the prospect of significant competitive pressure. One or many partners? Would the chances of success be increased by having multiple partners, one for each targeted therapeutic area? WRT the new science, and the BMAH - is it better to have multiple players carrying the flag, or just one? Can one player handle the drain on resources, and the development potentials? Your observations are excellent. Thanks. Jim