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 : Biotech Short Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tuck who wrote (757)	11/24/2005 1:06:31 AM
From: former_pgs	Respond to of 897

shorting styles... As an opening statement, I realize that going short stocks that others own is not greatly popular. But it's not personal. My shorting style is 95% fundamentals, 5% timing, and I prefer taking longer term short positions. As disclosure, I'm currently short ingn from months ago and I was short imgn for a long time in between christmas and about the middle of this year. My strategy is to focus on companies that I think demonstrate any of the following: 1. bad management / untrustworthy management 2. shaky drug / overly fancy technology 3. poor development program MSHL / NVGN qualifies for 1, and a bit of 3 in my book. Misleading reporting of objective responses when they've not been verified, misreporting of response rate percentages... things like that. Drug may be effective in combo, but I personally believe bad management will flush it down the tubes. INGN is mostly 3 with some of 1. I think their BLA strategy is presented to investors in a disingenous manner, they never provide a straight answer to the simplest of questions, and their phase 3 trials have been enrolling since the days of the bubble... :-) IMGN is mostly 2, with a bit of 1. The conjugated antibody method has "too many notes"... (1) drug must remain conjugated to antibody, (2) must bind tumour cell, (3) must get internalized, (4) must then dissociate... and all this must happen in sufficient amounts for the toxin to reach a high enough level in the cell. That's too many steps given that each step has a low probability in and of itself. Also, the management of this company has cashed it in... they're simply interested in keeping the company alive, and have practically sold the entire pipeline to collaborators like mlnm and aventis. I wouldn't call them bad or untrustworthy, but rather uninterested. I think, at best, one drug from imgn will ever make it to market... and even then, their low cut of the proceeds ensures that they'll never command a large premium. ONCY is a mix of 1 and 3. Management is unexperienced and amateurish, and the drug development process has been extremely slow. It is understandable that a replication competent virus may be guided slowly through the regulatory process by the FDA, but that's life... the slow development will protract cash burn and ensure future dilution. I also have no faith in the ability of their scientific staff to develop a pipeline to back up the clinical candidate.

To: tuck who wrote (757)	11/24/2005 1:26:34 AM
From: Robohogs	Respond to of 897

On OSCI, I am concerned that there is no ramp in the world in that gets the drug revenues above the SG&A - most of which is for selling Factive. They have a very high fixed cost hurdle to overcome and most of the numbers I have seen show them dreadfully short in the near to intermediate term. That said, it probably works as a model in the intermediate to long term, but they do have that debt and rapidly disappearing cash to contend with. I think they are in a liquidity trap unless good news bails stock out and allows them to refinance (see ELN before T Black Monday and SEPR last year as well as many other cases). I like the drug, but can they sell enough fast enough without help? Jon

To: tuck who wrote (757)	11/27/2005 9:02:05 PM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 897

tuck, regarding NBIX and a buyout being baked in and supporting pps, I agree with you. As Jon said, it has ramped hard, but that is a big part of a rational case why a short here makes sense to me. If PFE were to make a move, doing so before Indiplon pdufa date would be perceived as rash to PFE s/holders (too high), and NBIX management would find it equally hard to justify buyout price (too low) to its shareholders before FDA action is taken (as well as before the next clinical results for GnRH candidate). The hard ramp in price, the regulatory window before it makes sense for either party to move seems to invite tuckaction. (long a very modest NBIX position forever, with some fluctuations up and down, currently and for some time on the low end--wish I'd increased when Fred (or was it George) bought at $39 ish. Fred and George, must be Weasleys?) quid