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 : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chirodoc who wrote (4783)	11/20/1997 12:14:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

chirodoc, Excellent questions and comments. I have not followed this company for as long or as carefully as others here, so I cannot answer these questions. However, we do know the management of Xoma of the late 80's, early 90's (same as now?) was fairly incompetent and wasted a tremendous amount of sience and technology invented by their bright scientists. As a sample one can mention the wasted opportunity on chimeric anti-CD20 of which they'll be getting a few pennies from IDEC and Genentech. The scientists at Xoma pushed the project to management, but the latter was too busy with its legendary fight with Centocor on anti-sepsis drugs. This almost broke the two companies not least because neither drug worked. Centocor had ReoPro following right behind and this saved them (although they were forced to give a huge chunk of it to Lilly; Lilyy was a partner with Centoxin, the anti-sepsis, but had conditional rights to ReoPro in case the first faltered, as it did); Xoma dabbled for a while until stumbling on BPI, as I mentioned before as per a conversation with a former Xoma scientists, after being pushed by a Texas doc (Giroir [sp?]) to pursue it. Yep, you do not get the warm fuzzy feeling one gets with, for example INCY, when thinking of the management of Xoma. PB