Interested in how folks who seriously follow the company are thinking about expectations for the call.
Obviously, there is no revenue story. The expectations for operating expenses will likely not be a major focus area as well. Going forward, as the Company looks towards its Phase 3 leukemia trail, I think we'll see increased spend on this study, while they can speak to the reduction of spend from their discontinuation of the ENCHANT study.
The Company has obviously raised a bunch of money through dilutive ATM's...where they've really beefed up their balance sheet for the next 12 - 15 months.
So I think the real issues the Company needs to address relate to: (1) the data - what's new and what can we takeaway (good and bad) from the various studies; and (2) updates on the leadership and key personnel, as well as how that leads into their corporate and go-to-market strategy. I don't see how it is plausible that the Company is going to announce some type of deal or partnership as I've read in these posts...it just doesn't seem to be a likely scenario where that happens, especially how a counter-party would do so without a full-time CEO on board.
Being long has been painful, even for the long-term investors. I think the Company has to provide some clarity to put some relief on their stock...since outside a commercial deal, that is the only currency the company has to raise more money.
Any thoughts on how to think about the call?
clinical trial updates - progress and schedules, financing status including how many shares have already been offered and burn rate. analyst q&a should be interesting - they have several. would like to see question about status of partnering.
I am new to bio tech investing also.
It's foreign territory.
I was looking at PUMA(PBYI) and it really does not make sense to me.
PBYI had no revenues,working capital to cover @ 2 years of cash burn,and prior to phase 3 announcement which nearly quadrupled the stock price which had a mkt cap of @$1.75BB and now has a mkt cap of $7BB.
Was the phase 3 news that great?I guess so.
Why did PBYI have a $1.75BB mkt cap prior to the announcement.The news was not adequate to support that.
PBYI......phase 3 results do not mean FDA approval unless I missed something in the announcement
Ganetespib has a much larger potential pipeline for types of oncology treatments.
Question...read the 7/21 article on patients with AML.
Why wouldn't a large Pharm. corp. want to develop a partnership now with SNTA rather than later at a much higher price?IMO....Kovner has connections and does not want to lose control of the golden goose.
Why make the 7/21 announcement then rather at E/R on 8/6?
IMO,SNTA is not making "fluff" announcements to support the stock price.
It is news.
I guess we will see if there is any substance on 8/6 E/R.
Or if hedge funds continue to control or get squeezed.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Apache - thanks for your post. my take re: your comments:
Re: PBYI - I don't know the story well, but I believe the big picture of their move came from the results being much better than expected in trials, where their drug can be used for early stage breast cancer patients to replace Herceptin (which Roche owns). Neratinib (sp.) can also be used as more of a platform drug for other types of HER-2 cancers (lung, breast, etc.) Also, the CEO sold his last company for about $2 billion, so he has a ton of credibility in the market.
Re: SNTA - I think their clinical data has been encouraging, but has obviously not blown the doors out. I think the overall corporate direction of discontinuing the ENCHANT program signaled to the market that ganetespib will be more effective as a combination therapy versus a monotherapy AND the focus of the I-SPY 2 program, while significant, is a lot smaller versus metastic diseases. I think they made the announcement (21-July) b/c they had support of new money which filled more than $60 M in funding through various ATM's. Given the uncertainty with the company (leadership, clarity on direction, discontinuing ENCHANT), you communicate.
I think Kovner was probably very helpful w/r to securing the current Interim CEO, but he's not a biotech guy, therefore his primary impact is his continued support & dollars (not to discredit the guy at all).
Remember, Synta had a partnership years ago (I believe in 2009), so I believe they need to demonstrate measurable progress with their data to secure some type of meaningful partnership. As far as big pharma paying more later, it all depends on the structure of the deal, but like anything, big pharma's business is to let the bio-techs help take risk off the table.
I believe the company needs to provide some type of clarity to provide support for the stock. What I love about being long is that very positive news can move the stock materially...in the absence of that, the floor is likely 2 - 3
an incubator like Synta doesn't necessarily need a CEO, it certainly gives comfort but doesn't solve the problem. A billionaire doesn't solve the problem either. What I'm still uncertain about is why a retired, probably financially comfortable ex-ceo of Incyte is doing someone on the board a favor. I think it has to be explained why three people left this company since last December. Also, even though the biotech sector was red hot at the end of the year leading into Feb, what really drove the price from 3.75 in November to 7.17 in February if everything else either improved or stayed the same, minus the management changes.
Thanks for the post / views. I think you raise some good questions, that I don't think we'll learn the answers to anytime soon. I agree re: Kovner's position. He has been long for 10+ years, so I think the bigger ripple he can make is if he exited his position. The current Executive Director (ex-Incyte guy) I think was an interim positive where (optimistically) I'm hoping proves to be a positive to recruit the right leadership for the long-term.
With regards to not needing a CEO, that's where I have to disagree. It's usually great leadership that attracts and retains key personnel, as well as the direction and vision of the Company. It doesn't show up in the clinical data about the type of leader, but I think it is extremely important.
Who are the three people you are referencing? Bahcall was terminated prior to the previous call. Bernitz was terminated during the quarter...was there another key departure during the quarter?
Thanks again for the post.