you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
I don't understand what you're saying. It sounds like you're trying to form a public pool to make an offer for the company.
The cash on the books is an accounting anomaly. The cost of future clinical trials ought to be there as a debt. As I've pointed out in the "crapshoot" topic, if Azixa turns out to be exactly a nice salvage treatment for GBM (which is all we can be pretty confident of getting right now), the stock price is fair (and Azixa is a commercial mistake).
Sometimes the rules make you keep the books in a way that's more misleading than it needs to be. The cash is cash, and it doesn't have a debt item offsetting it because a moral [really, business sanity] commitment to spend the cash in a certain way just isn't recognized in GAAP.
It looks like a company that has maybe sold something and has cash to deploy. but that is an unfair comparison. Declaring a special dividend would be stupid because the cash would have to be replaced later, or the company would effectively be folding.
So there's no fraud. GAAP work well for ordinary going concerns, but simply because development stage companies aren't going yet, GAAP portray them poorly.
out of 100 biotechs (micro-/midcaps) - how many of them are trading below cash, huh? There is ALMOST always a (sometime VERY heavy) premium to the cash position. It�s known as technology value. I think we have a pretty exciting pipeline here that should be worth something. I said $25M, it could as well be the double- I�m conservative.
We have substansial upside from here - without ph IIb data.
MYRX is unparalleled. It was set up with enough cash to take its lead candidate to the first FDA decision. Normally, a small biotech has enough starting money to get to the last patient of phase 1. There's a need to raise at least 2 more rounds of funding before the first FDA decision. On the other hand, a small biotech with a candidate as good as Azixa would suceed with the first round of additional funding.
The market potential of Azixa is unusual. The primary indication can't really be expanded gradually (most GBM patients who get first-line treatment eventually need third-line treatment). The additional indications of interest are well studied and have standard treatment progressions; it'll take substantial studies to open markets. So Myrexis will need another round of funding near the time of the first FDA decision to support research taking it to really worthwhile business levels.
What specifically are you saying that who specifically should do to inject that $25MM? (I come from a background where 1 M is 'thousand,' incidentally)
it's not debt. they could stop trials tomorrow, sell pipeline and distribute cash.
azixa is too early to draw any conclusions, other than it has the potential to be a failure or blockbuster. we know nothing until, at the very least, we see 2b data.
as of now, its the best risk/reward stock i own.
"it's not debt. they could stop trials tomorrow, sell pipeline and distribute cash."
Since there's really nothing useful to say until some news comes out, let's chew this one over.
We are looking at a company that is very likely to be worth at least $30 a share (and possibly a lot more) in 3 years. The deep pipeline is too undeveloped to fetch much; rights to Azixa are presently impossible to value ($50MM of annual sales pretty much assured; over $1Bln likely, over $10Bln imaginable). So let's say the pipeline could bring $4 as share + warrants with a present value of $2. Something like $12 + warrants. Not a real attractive deal. So the money dedicated to development ought to be spent. That isn't as firm as a contract with an outside research provider, but it's something that ought to appear on the books somehow.