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: Webhead who wrote (4893)	11/26/1997 10:21:00 AM
From: aknahow	Respond to of 17367

Webhead, nice info. Don't know terms of agreement with GNE but with Connetics one of the milestones for a payment was FDA approval. True that was a purchase of technology deal and this is licensing deal. Second thought, Coulter Pharm article in IBD yeaterday. while 18 mos behind IDEC appears to have better, more effective drug, (Bexxar), than Rituxan. So perhaps even though not great news for Xoma the decison to license the technology was a good one rather than spend millions only to see the potential for competition take some of the shine off ones efforts. See Xoma as indirect way to play Rituxan an idea that those on IDEC thread think little of because of small royalty stream. With competition now a real potential threat I think the concept has more merit, since less risk in XOMA from ultimate disapointment in IDEC.

To: Webhead who wrote (4893)	11/26/1997 11:27:00 AM
From: aknahow	Respond to of 17367

Xoma, in 96 a.r., discloses range of royalities paid by it (1.5% to 5% in general and up to 25%). Supprised that they do not give range of what they earn. However if they pay 1.5% minimum royalty I do not feel way out of line thinking about 2% on sales of Rituxan. It would be a great and plesant supprise if the royalty were higher but if $500 milion in sales are hit your estimate of $10 million looks like its on target. If IF we had a stroke of good luck and it was a 5% royalty that would be great but not counting on it. Arthur Anderson / Auditors get with it, force disclosure of range of royalities received. It's a material fact! <g>

To: Webhead who wrote (4893)	11/26/1997 11:40:00 AM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Links to Murphy site showing fund holdings. His book due out in Jan has ticker symbols on cover but in keeping with Reuters tradition XOMA may not be mentioned. (Perhaps it is.) Am sure it will be mentioned inside. ctsl.com Sturzas site is sturzas.com Sturza does not recomend XOMA and his site is included for general interest. Sample letters are under construction. The news on XOMA in Lancet and elsewhere is bound to attract attention. A decision to recomend Xoma by anyone is something else again. Looking for info on Michael Gianturco or his Princton Portfolios. His remendation of Xoma in Forbes in June has worked well and thought he would follow up. Any info appreciated.