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: Robert K. who wrote (4908)	11/27/1997 12:47:00 PM
From: aknahow	Respond to of 17367

Bob, in a post of mine I did not bother o correct something I thought of mino significance. Xoma pays from 1 1/2 to 5% royalities it pays 25% on "things" it has sublicensed. The gNE sub license to IDEC triggered the thought. Are royalities on sub licenses higher? If so why? Ed did a fine job of demonstrating that Worth would have a blurb on XOMA soon due to a the least follow up by McCamant on his past yrs recomeation in special issue. Also demonstrated that good chance it will be mentioned again in the best stock picks section by either one of the 2 M.M or J.M and most probably J.M. Think your ramp up estimats make sense. Not kidding about percent royalty bing material fact.

To: Robert K. who wrote (4908)	11/27/1997 1:26:00 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Bob, FDA said in 2 weeks while in L.A. Times cos state in about a month. Thinking about motives, just as I or we have a bias for Xoma to go many people or institutions have their own particular bias. Aparently the FDA needs winners and publicity to show the public they are an effective institution that has an interest in getting effective drugs to market. Too bad the royalty has not ben disclosed. That IMO is a hook which might get analyst to look at XOMA again. The more info XOMA can supply on the whole area of projected royalities the better.