Disclaimer: I am an amateur investor, but a professional scientist engaged in vision research.
Even if there is a report forthcoming in NEJM regarding restoration of vision in a patient, or even 2 patients, a great deal of time will be needed before this can become a widely available treatment, even with accelerated breakthrough approval. The best chance, it seems for ACTC to become even slightly profitable is to partner up, and sell their IP. I am long on ACTC, partly because I don't understand enough about shorting and day trading to risk my money, and partly because I FULLY understand the time and money that it takes to bring any therapeutics to market. And this is not a simple therapeutic -- not a simple once a day pill or injection. This is a complex therapeutic requiring growth of cells in culture, with associated quality control, and then surgical delivery of these cells by specialized teams. This is not going to be a high volume, high throughput treatment. The demand will be great, but the difficulties of bringing it to market, scientific, and otherwise are equally great. I do believe in ACTC's IP (especially with the recent stem cell study from Japan seemingly being flawed science) and that they are on the right track scientifically. Business-wise I am less confident of their acumen, but time will tell whether their excellent science can overcome their other weaknesses.
Re: ........ The best chance, it seems for ACTC to become even slightly profitable is to partner up...........
beareclawe • Mar 11, 2014 1:32 PM
Re: .... Everyone on iCell talks about big pharma partnerships on the horizon too...I really don't think this is the case. What is their incentive?......
LSR: Looking at your data sheets, I note that another catalyst you use is partnering. A small biotech company partnering with a large pharma is a very important factor, not just because of the financial and intellectual support but also because the large pharma is, in effect, validating that technology platform or approach for investors. But sometimes, after a partnership announcement, we see a selloff. Why?
MH: This is an interesting dilemma. Small companies need new money, and an upfront payment from a pharma is a nice way of monetizing some of their assets. A partnership also validates the product or platform, and gives the biotech security. To your question: Many times the large pharmaceutical company requires so much in a deal—such as a high percentage of future revenues—that if an investor uses a discounted cash flow (DCF) model, the value of the small biotech shrinks based on that partnership split. While an upfront payment will be nice for the company and nice for management and operations, it does not compute into a very high present value as compared to what those future revenues would have been without splitting them.
TLSR: Partnering is one more form of dilution, isn't it?
MH: Yes, it is. I've heard this from investors and I've heard it from smaller companies: A lot of times they don't like to see partnership deals done the way they are. They'd rather see companies raise money in the marketplace because they give away too much to the pharmaceutical companies on future royalty streams.
I also think many investors do not take future partnership splits into account enough when they're valuing a company. When we at Sagient look at a company's pipeline and put a valuation on its drugs, we try to assume what its future royalty agreements will be. A lot of times a small biotech only gets 20%, and that could really reduce the value in a DCF model. If you're only getting a 20% royalty, you need a billion-dollar drug to make up a decent valuation for yourself.
I think investors would rather see companies raise money in the marketplace, bring their drugs to a later stage of development (closer to approval) and then sell themselves outright to a pharmaceutical company, rather than give away a lot of the rights to a product. The proof of that is you do see quite high multiples on merger-and-acquisition deals.
Re: Peer reviewed .........
It's entertainment time...... courtesy of mr anthony "perna" patrone a.k.a. cocoabrown717.
(8/07/13 CC transcript)
Anthony Petrone: Hello Mr. Rabin. Thank you. When we're talking like this, does that guy who mentioned my name, does my name get out over everybody that's listening in on this?
Anthony Petrone: So the public would know my name, so I shouldn't use my ID name on the computer, correct.
Gary: I'm not going to advise you what to do. When you say your name it is public.
Anthony Petrone: I have been with this outfit, I don't know, when they were down in the pinks, a long, long time ago before you came on, and everything you say, and everything that I've been hearing, is all promising. It's like all giggity, giggity…. I mean it's got people just…. But I've got to ask you sir, and I'm not just a nickle-dime stock holder, let me say this. A couple of million I'm proud to say, and maybe that's not a lot of money, that's not a lot to some people, but I don't know, to me that's a lot. I firmly believe in what you're doing here, what's going on, but can I ask you something, and I hope not to be redundant. Where's the money at in this? I mean you would think, where are the big dogs at, Pfizer, Merck. I mean, has anybody from ACTC kind of like had lunch with one of these guys? You know what I mean sir? Any big dogs lookin, I mean any prospects, that's what I wanted to ask you, because this all sounds exciting, all great, but where's the money.
Re: "Even if there is a report forthcoming in NEJM regarding restoration of vision in a patient, or even 2 patients, a great deal of time will be needed before this can become a widely available treatment, even with accelerated breakthrough approval."
pootel, you are here describing what ACT already did in Lancet. The next report will have incredibly detailed information on many patients, some with AMD and some with SMD.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Re: ......The demand will be great, but the difficulties of bringing it to market, scientific, and otherwise are equally great.......
11 January 2012
But even if the trial results are positive, ACT will face enormous challenges in commercializing the technology. The company will have to show the FDA that its RPE cells can slow vision loss in bigger and more expensive clinical trials.
And even if the treatment works, storing and distributing the cells, which often have short shelf-lives, is expensive and logistically difficult, says Chris Mason, head of the Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Bioprocess Group at University College London.
These challenges were thrown into stark relief when Geron halted its stem-cell trial in November, having decided that the hurdles to commercializing the therapy were too great. Now, it is up to ACT to face them. “The departure of Geron from the field will ultimately place a greater burden on ACT in terms of educating the FDA and establishing standards for safety and efficacy,” Bonfiglio says.
Re: Disclaimer: I am an amateur investor, but a professional scientist engaged in vision research........ I am long on ACTC...........
3 posts | Last Activity: 59 minutes ago
Member since: Mar 13, 2014
Pootel_2004: You clearly do not understand what ACT is doing or how they intend to do it. Far, far more than "one or two" patients have been treated. The injections can be done by any competent ophthalmologist, only ONE injection per eye is needed. They have established the optimum number of stem cells to inject. My advice to you, unsought and probably unwanted, is to go to the iCell website, find ACT in the list and start reading up on what is really happening. It is a monitored site so no trash talk as occurs here is possible there. You will find a wealth information and will become very, very excited about this stock (or not, depending on how you see it.)
biodigger: Thanks for the response. I have read the website info previously, and I agree with everything you write. My point was that many posters on this site are holding their collective breath on results from just a few patients (example, the recent mysterious conference of Yorkshire Ophthalmologists), and, it's likely that any credible scientific article that materializes soon will report on a small patient cohort. It will therefore take some time before this procedure, that must be performed by a specialized ophthalmologist, can become routine (like, say LASIK) such that it can be delivered on a wider scale. And, it will take some time before the science is fully in place to allow this treatment to become optimized for all patients, and to then be widely accepted. It's exciting science, and I fully believe in it, but I believe that the time scale required is even longer than anyone here seems to think.
Pootel, don't be offended, but I think you're full of it, and you should take an enama to rid yourself of the brain constipation that you're experiencing. By the way, the EMA will approve ACT's AMD & SMD cures within six months(of course this will wakeup the FDA to do the same soon after), so take that and stick it in your professional scientist cap.
We're for .45-right now. They claim they can manufacture in a small area, They are looking for a manuf manager (it's on the website)-and there was an old plan to JV for distribution purposes only. Selling the IP-is screwing us!!!