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 : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Andrew H who wrote (20492)	5/11/1998 6:57:00 PM
From: bob zagorin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

Andy, please expand on why you don't like it. I respect your opinion but would be inclined to believe Robinson when he says: "...We believe that the net effect, following closing of the merger, transfer of ONTAK rights from Lilly to Ligand, and launch of ONTAK following regulatory approval, is significantly accretive to Ligand earnings in 1999 and beyond," Mr. Robinson said...."

To: Andrew H who wrote (20492)	5/11/1998 6:57:00 PM
From: Andreas Helke	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 32384

The buyout of SRGN removes an important competitor for the treatment of CTCL. They will probably get higher prices for their drugs after buying out the competition for CTCL treatment. That should help to increase Ligands market cap. Maybe Ligand wants to make sure that the 1999 earnings are closer to 80 than to 8 cents. I am still astonished that a treatment of a rare disease like CTCL makes a significant difference to the earnings of a medium sized biotech company. Andreas

To: Andrew H who wrote (20492)	5/11/1998 7:18:00 PM
From: Russian Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32384

Andy and all, I am not sure that I am impressed with the deal, either. Here is LGND's own press release, which is more detailed than the previously uploaded story: biz.yahoo.com My own "gut feeling" is that LGND would not pay some $100 million for a CTCL drug with a problematic side effect profile. There has to be more to this than just that. (Although at annual treatment costs of upto $60,000 per patient, even a small indication can prove profitable.) I have to suspect that either (1) the psoriasis testing is going well, and that LGND is ultimately looking forward to this market, and/or (2) that LGND believes _very_ strongly in the fusing technology that they are obtaining. Either of these factors, coupled with the CTCL indication, would be sufficient to make this deal attractive, but I find it hard to believe that it is worth paying almost $100 million in the absence of either. I will be very interested to read the thoughts of Henry and others on this subject. Good luck, RB