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 : Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biotech Jim who wrote (288)	10/3/1998 5:04:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 4974

Jim: First, enjoyed your comments entirely. I sort of thought that the NRGN chemistry was good enough to cover the merged entity (minus MLNM..... :-). Haven't looked at GLFD chem, no, not at all. They seem to be having some pronounced successes with AMGN. Have looked at SIBI and consider them to be ripe for control by a company with more (not better, please note) chemistry. Just trying to construct companies that have many more targets rolling through preclinical and early-stage human trials.... companies where the current depressed valuations could be supported by modest success with any one of 10 projects. I'd love to have a magic "merger" wand right now; we could distribute risk and create "with luck, we're a breakthrough" organizations. It is my dream to see another Amgen, but to have the research bucks thrown at SCIENCE instead of down the Thousand Oaks drain. Sure, I've looked at the MLNM burn. However, I feel that they've reached a point where the dollars are relatively efficient. I feel strongly about that..... the dollars rolling through the labs are more efficiently targeted at pharmaceuticals than in the vast majority of companies that I've studied. Time will tell if this will break down, but I was very impressed with the mid-level managers that I met. Chemistry is not a weakness among those who are there, and they're currently hiring to boost their pharma chem expertise. Bayer?? I started in the Bayer system. No comment, apart to say that if anyone can screw up a biotech project, it will be Wuppertal and Bayer. Levin has lots and lots of cash. I'm just afraid that, with the new targets, we'll return to a whole new era of "molecules in search of indications" (BTW, I coined that term). The initial clinical effort at HGSI sort of scares me in that regard. Cheers! Rick

To: Biotech Jim who wrote (288)	10/4/1998 9:32:00 PM
From: rkrw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4974

Jim, I'm a bit confused by your remarks regarding MLNM. The deal is not back-loaded. Rough figures are for $130M upfront, plus roughly $50M per year for the next 6 years. Annual payments are research payments plus payments for targets delivered. I am assuming that target delivery will not be a problem. So the deal is not structured at all on back end fees such as IND filings, NDA approvals etc and it includes standard royalties. For a good example of a back-loaded deal, I'd consider the GLFD/AMGN deal. Interesting that Lampert cites the MLNM deal as being this way, yet GLFD (a major holding of his) is a prime example, considering they need 15 indication approvals to reach the full allotment. Factor in a questionable patent standing to the equation as well.