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 : Agouron Pharmaceuticals (AGPH) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Izzy who wrote (4118)	4/21/1998 1:21:00 PM
From: Peter Singleton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6136

Izzy, Do you know anything specifically about 2034? Or are you just reflecting concerns about that type of product. Peter p.s., "Too bad AGPH doesn't have a drug like Viagra, which obviously has a w ider appeal (for the public; not me, tho')." hmmm .... "not me, tho" ... didn't Shakespeare have a line for that ("methinks...")?

To: Izzy who wrote (4118)	4/21/1998 1:21:00 PM
From: Steve Fancy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6136

Hi Issac, First, you should understand that I know nothing about the drug industry and how they do business. I got into the stock when it was more a momentum stock. I think the downgrade is the result of a desire to hook this company back up with a major player. I believe there's nervousness regarding the time frames on some of the other drugs and what is appearing to be a leveling off of Viracept market share. Again, I don't understand the biotech market well, but it seems to me that the investment community is not sold on the probability of Agouron bringing other popular drugs to the market. The Doug Lind comments were encouraging to me though, seems he believes in the possibilities, but wants to see the reassurance of a major player with muscle, experience, and deep pockets. As far as TA, I glance at charts, but am not heavy into TA. Bill Kirn is more the TA man. I go by gut feel which is largely based on FA and to a lesser degree, my impression of sentiment. I am a shorter term investor, don't like to be in anything too long in this market. I believe the stock will break 40 if Agouron can increase Viracept market share (stock seems heavily influenced by scrip data at this point in time), announcement of a collaboration, or strong data suggesting something in their pipeline will be a blockbuster. If it were to break 40, it may experience a forceful move upwards, even if temporary, as the shorts get squeezed. The thought of a possible acquisition as suggested in the PW report is a little scary. A move of this nature could bury the stock...could always be a positive also I guess, depending on the specifics. PW has taken a brave position regarding their $65-$70 12 month price target, but I don't have much of a feel for Ms Wangs experience or credibility. I do know that she's maintained this 12 month target for over a year now, and we know what's happened to the stock. I'm not impressed with PW picks in general, they seem to have a knack for picking stocks that get halved (AGPH aside). Would be interested in your thoughts on the pipeline. I have some other information pertaining to monthly scrip comparisons I'll try and post tonight. regards, sf

To: Izzy who wrote (4118)	4/22/1998 12:30:00 AM
From: margie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6136

Doug Lind's decision was supposedly based on his belief that Agouron has not diversified top-line risk through licensing quickly enough. No other analysts expressed similar concerns over this issue, and many did not agree with his opinion and considered it premature especially since it has only been four months since the Roche deal ended. Lind's decision could not have been based on side effects from AG3340 or any other drug, as no results have even been released. As Peter Singleton said: "What's the big deal over the lack of an in-licensed product? There's a lot of deals out there, but very few that would make compelling strategic sense. It takes an enormous amount of time to evaluate these deals, then to negotiate the deal. As far as I can tell, an in-licensed product is a nice to have, but not essential." Many of us here seem to agree that we would prefer that Agouron develop drugs alone if feasible, rather than give up a chunk of future profits in exchange for funding from major drug companies. L Moss from AOL has a great post on the subject of collaborations. Subject: Collaborations Date: Tue, Apr 21, 1998 20:55 EDT Some people seem to think that collaboration with one or more big pharmaceutical companies is a necessary part of a successful biotechnology business model, but this is not necessarily the case. Collaboration has both benefits and costs. For example, the successful collaboration of Agouron and Japan Tobacco in the development of Viracept allowed Agouron to share the risk of possible failure and reduce the dilution of equity that would have been necessary if Agouron developed it on its own. As for the cost, Agouron's just-completed 3QFY98 earnings (after tax, fully diluted) would have been $0.74, not $0.41 per share, if it did not pay royalties. And this is just the beginning of a long stream of royalty payments. Agouron was able to make $0.41 per share even after supporting its R&D at an annualized rate of $127 million. The company is now able to bear the risk of possible failure and avoid dilution of equity even while retaining 100% interest in drugs under development. If collaboration does make sense, it should be done for other reasons, and even then it should be delayed until after pivotal Phase ll/lll studies are completed, when Agouron's bargaining position will be much stronger. When would it make sense? One example is if a drug developed by Agouron required marketing on a scale beyond the current or near-term prospective capability of the company's marketing department. This would not apply to a second anti-HIV drug, but might well be the case for a remedy for the common cold (AG7088, we hope). An anti-cancer drug is a closer call; though it would require marketing on a scale beyond the company's current capability, such marketing could focus, at least initially, on the less numerous community of oncologists. The point is that collaboration is not good in all cases, and must be considered only as part of a comprehensive strategy to achieve the objectives of the company, its customers, and its shareholders. LMoss