You have a chance to buy a company with $30 million in cash for $22 million. The company has technology that potentially could be very valuable----hundreds of millions+++. This is an arguable point and plenty of risk along the path, but let's get rationale for a moment.
They have enough cash to last until 2013. A lot can happen in a year. If everything falls apart, the company won't go away,it will be worth 0.10-0.20 in 2013 at which point they raise money. A $15 million raise at 0.15 will give them about another 100 million shares outstanding. So, a total of about 150 million shares.
I have seen many bio companies in much worse condition than that that come flyng back. Today, we have a company with plenty of cash, a low burn, good strategy and trading well below cash value.. In the words of my Jewish mother "vat a deal".
And the study results released this week is minor compared to the heart of the technology. I simply think emotions rule the day with plenty of folks who don't understand the scientific and business implications of this company. Fine with me. I am buying your shares.
By the way, I noticed many microcaps trading at give away prices. I am loading up and hoping people come to their senses.
If they did go ahead with an API source from Asia, would the FDA raise any concerns about this? So far, it looks like they have BIOD-2AA, BIOD-2FF
and BIOD-2HH as potential candidate formulations.
Notes from the CC:
Bring analog MTA option exercise discussion to a conclusion - Q4 ’11
■ Define path forward and timelines for lead ultra-rapid-acting prandial
insulin (RHI and/or analog) candidate formulation(s) - Q4 ’11
■ Continue to streamline business and strengthen balance sheet
Recently completed $30MM financing
Recently renegotiated API supply agreement for near-term savings of $4.2MM
Fund only preclinical and select Phase 1 clinical work for non ultra-rapid-acting
prandial insulin programs – spend will be driven by partnership probability
We have adequate cash to last at least through the first half of fiscal year 2013
The company had to first secure a source of API for an analog. It is patent protected in most of the world. That doesn't happen overnite. Once they got the source they did go into testing...pre-clinical testing. so they really are not dragging their feet. This has nothing to do with cost, but sourcing it. Now to go into ph I they again need to secure a source again. If analog company won't give it to them again, they can use source from Asia that isn't patent protected. You are right on the pump data only being a little better than Humalog. Now the analog formualation should be a lot better. Again, this is all moving in the right direction in my opinion.
I beleive they wanted more than one API before going into clinical trials so not to be "locked" into one pharma. I also wish they had concurrent testing of both RHI and analog.
In regards to results of Humalog vs RHI, the data might not show vast improvemnts but you are comparing against an analog and not an RHI. If this RHI went to market, it would probably be cheaper than a generic analog and still have the same or better profile. I know the insurance companies lean towards paying for a cheaper product.
Ok,so then why did they not just go straight into testing with the Analogs? Or atleast a head to head (RHI & Analog)? Especially when they were able to get the FDA to switch to humalog as the control? They've been holding this Analog carrot out in front of investors since around the beginning of this year. It just seems really stupid in retrospect.
This is just a guess but I am thinking that the Analog API are more expensive to manufacter then RHI, may that be the reason for them to take so long to get the analog testing out?
On another subject when I look at the Pump data, I was surprised to see, and correct me if I am wrong but it looked to my eye that the Ultra Rapid RHI was only slightly superior then Humalog. I was quite surprised with that. Can anyone tell me if I am interpreting the charts incorrectly with the pump data?
The company might keep the RHI alive as a negotiating tactic, but the analog formula is where the real hope is. It's much more attractive from a commercial standpoint also. I think Ely will be very interested. The other ultra rapids...MNKD and Halozyme are just not commercially attractive.
OK, I will jump in here. I've been an old timer and was here during the FDA fiasco - there was even some crazy post about people calling the office again and again inquiring a party at the office 2 days before the FDA announcement.. those were the days.
Anyway, though it's true that BIOD has cash, but it also has a burn rate of $20M per year. So the cash will only last 1-2 years. Will BIOD have something to show for in 1-2 years? I really do not know.
The Harvard Investment Fund used to invest a lot of money in BIOD but it has pulled out after the FDA fiasco. You see that institutions have been dumping this stock too.
History is full of small drug companies full of promises but subsequential die. Just be warned. If you are going to invest in BIOD, don't go "all-in".
It was a disapointment to not push forward with BIOD105 & BIOD107 but I think management did the right thing. It is better to come up with the right formulation that will be able to compete against an analog in price and efficacy.
I agree, but it was the extended wash-out time that was a major stumbling block with BIOD-105 and BIOD-107, imo. They mentioned it in the CC, but I am not sure how a BIOD formulation as applied to analogue insulins will correct the wash-out factor. Quicker absorption and peak times were reached, but apparently it did not wash out fast enough for its intended use by Type 1 diabetics.
I agree that BIOD is worth more. They have a patented technology that a pharma will want to extend the life of their analog. Hope BIOD brings an analog into clinical trials soon. BIOD will update progress in the 4th quarter.