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 : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert K. who wrote (6316)	1/17/1999 11:54:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

Bob: Anti-CD11a...... there are two issues. The first, and I've asked this before without getting an answer....... what is the royalty interest in anti-CD11a going forward? Since GNE's plate is full, they may luck out and get some. But, what is the current royalty interest of XOMA, going forward, in anti-CD11a? Why do XOMA's efforts with anti-CD11a make XOMA more attractive to you than RGEN? The second issue..... yes, I like the molecule, but we don't know anything about efficacy or about potential efficacy relative to innovative and competitive projects in development. I don't particularly like the selection of psoriasis as an indication..... not from a biological stand, but from a "niche that's good for XOMA" stand. Anti-fungal..... won't provide, IMO, any cushion, north of $1 per share, if menigo fails. We have been communicating, in a consistently constructive fashion, since the days of m.i.s in Spring, '95. The subject at hand then was E5, not BPI. Since then, XOMA has never looked like an investment that has upside leverage relative to a number of other companies. It has finally reached the point where it does. But, if you try to make it look like the downside is limited relative to other companies that have not diluted on the back of continuous hype and hope, you are misrepresenting the situation. For four years, I have been correct about XOMA, the investment. I've been correct for a lot longer than that, but you've only seen the four years. That, plus the record that you've watched with my other investments, should teach you that I'm probably correct now..... if the meningo trial fails, the downside will be ugly. I do not see why you would challenge such, as it is true. The MC:book for XOMA is rich. As you also know, I got onboard and was hoping for a halt on positive data at the time of the interim peek. I want BPI to work, and, again, there's real profit potential left in the stock despite the dilution. >> Besides that they have expression technology which may provide downstream royalties (as does INCY) AND the have monoclonal humanization technology the value of which is anyones guess (but may compete with pdli). << These are both hunks of science that came onboard from Santa Monica. For a long time, I was making the mistaken assumption that the humanization of anti-CD20 derived from work that I initiated in the lab of Greg Winter (we filed patent applications dealing with anti-CD5 and the expression of CD5 on a subpopulation of B cells). I therefore have not looked closely enough. However, it looks like we're headed to CAT-, Abgenix-, and/or Medarex-like procedures for the derivation of human or human-like MAbs. An issued patent is usually worthless. You would do everyone a favor by telling us why this one isn't. My request is sincere, without assuming the negative. Santa Monica was the land of Randy Wall, Gary Wilcox, et al., and I have great respect for their capacities. You've brought up some good points. Your support for them is insufficient, but, OTOH, I can't dismiss them. Rick