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 (6825)	7/28/1998 1:58:00 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Funding biotechs, so called dilution, private placements and etc. are important topics. What I have trouble understanding on any thread, BVF, Ligand or here is the concept that it is somehow evil to issue more shares. There is no magic wand. A company or an industry that does not have earnings, needs years and millions to develop an approved product that may or may not be profitable is going to have to give up something beyond the normal cost of financing, and in fact that something will be above the cost of junk bond financing. Now one might think a secret deal with a big pharma is great but even when no additional shares are issued to the pharma the giving up of the major portion of the profits in exchange for up front funding milestone payments and royalties is obviously also dilution. But since the details are not provided one does not even know how much damage is done. I do not like the no floor c.v.p. deals but one can at least go back and check out the actual issuance of shares and the cash received in a companies annual report. Perhaps these deals can be structured to keep their cost at only slightly above the usury level. <g> While some disagree I see no logical solution for the industry until the FDA is forced to concentrate only on safety, and leave the efficacy issue to patients and doctors. The regulatory world can be changed while the way markets work cannot. That does not mean the FDA will change nor that getting it to change will be easy. But to cry and whine about dilution and the horrible deals biotechs must make is of no use.

To: Robert K. who wrote (6825)	7/28/1998 2:27:00 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Bob, saw your post on the V.D. thread and Ricks response, and also your reply. Obviously saw Bluegreens post also. While there are many big issues I want to ask about smaller ones. I agree everyone can look at the same facts and still form different conclusions but I have trouble understanding why one would see the deal with INCY as disproving XOMAs statement that the INCY patents would be a hindrance. I recall Castello also saying that XOMA would seek to resolve patent disputes without litigation and by licensing agreements. This is just what was done and the deal done IMO opinion as well as others was that it was a good deal for XOMA. So, as a fact the INCY patents have not proved to be a hindrance and payment of a modest sum occurs only as a result of sales of products using the patents and is limited. Yes, a small up front payment was made. The second small point is meningococcemia not mattering. You mentioned a short time ago that Meningococcemia is sepsis and I think everyone agrees. If Neuprex works on one especially sever type of sepsis why would one just dismiss it as not having any potential use on other types. I am interested in hearing more discussion about his slice and dice arguments, which I have heard from others before. You might ask why I don't ask Harmon directly and my answer is I feel uncomfortable posting on the BVF thread since this is a XOMA issue and also on the V.D. thread for the same reason. In addition I am sure Rick will feel free to say whatever he wants, where he wants.

To: Robert K. who wrote (6825)	7/28/1998 2:40:00 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Bob, easier question. E.Coli O157. Made the cover of Time and of course has been big topic on the Internet. Two years go I saw a parent use the wadding area to change a disposable diaper and wash off the remainder that stuck to the kid. Have not been back but bought seasons passes for some Yahoo posters. I know that antibiotics kill off the flora in the intestine which are mainly e.coli. Will not the use of Neuprex also kill off E.Coli and what complications will that cause? BTW do you think E.Coli just might be another target some snippet of BPI could be used against? <g>