re: CYTK does have an enabling technology (Cytometrix; see their website) that brings in some revenue from partnerships (Astra Zeneca, Esai, Novartis, Vertex, Tularik). I believe that the technology could bring in significant revenue in the future as it is being broadened and refined.
from the cytk 10Q:
Prior to achieving profitable operations, the Company intends to fund operations through the additional sale of equity securities, payments from strategic collaborations, government grant awards and debt financing.
I don't see anything on revenue generation from the sale of enabling technologies. What I meant is that they don't generate revenue from adjacent markets. The Esai, Novartis, Vertex, Tularik partnerships were mentioned almost 3 years ago without any news since then...must have been a bust. Astra is new and from the press release looks like collaboration/partnership money not an adjacent market to increase revenues that will be used fund R&D
CYTK does have an enabling technology (Cytometrix; see their website) that brings in some revenue from partnerships (Astra Zeneca, Esai, Novartis, Vertex, Tularik). I believe that the technology could bring in significant revenue in the future as it is being broadened and refined.
yup can't argue with what you are saying that other parts of the portfolio are often used to fund more promising therapeutic areas. i can see where they are coming from. there aren't that many companies looking at novel therapeutics in the funal market. try and make a quick buck then use it fund the CHF or oncology programs which have more compelling economics.
this may be part of the long-term strategy but since they don't have any other revenue sources besides collaborations/partnerships i would have expected that they would already have some ind filings for the fungal market. many start-ups have other revenue streams besides collaboration/partnership revenue (i.e., compound synthesis, enabling technology, or adjacent product production --like fibrogen for instance). cytk doesn't (oh yes I just pointed out another weakness in cytk--have to add that to the list)...
I don't completely agree with your analysis of the anti-fungal market. It is true that it is a small market however, for a small company, it can bring significant amount of cash. One example of this is Gilead with the liposomal formulation of amphotericin B (Ambisome). The revenues from the sales of Ambisome provided the company with significant amount of cash to finance the development of new drugs for larger therapeutics markets (HIV).
well they still probably will make out okay but people will probably not see any Dutch auctions for a while...but hey you never know
from a yahoo article:
Google anticipates its 25.7 million shares will be priced between $108 and $135 each in what could be a $3 billion initial public offering, which would be a record for an Internet company. If the stock trades at the midpoint of Google's range, it would have a market capitalization of about $30 billion � lower than Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news)'s but above General Motors Corp.
that is still an amazing valuation and fundraising round via an IPO. The irony is that many small investors, the intended beneficiaries of the dutch auction, will be priced out of the IPO by the high price and institutional investors just had a different way to overbook the IPO stock. and bankers don't like change so people would say that the amount raised is much smaller than if they raised capital the old fashion way.
the thing that you might have found interesting from my posts is that i haven't exaggerated or provided an inaccurate analysis of this stock...i am taking basic (well maybe not that basic) biotech valuation methods and biotech stock analysis methods that anyone can read in a book. some people just happen to get paid to do it...the short
*cytk is a risky stock with one drug candidate (+ 1 backup) and no real pipeline. also the other therapeutic areas either do not have compelling economics (fungal) or are long term projects (CHF)
*the management team sold the stock well to institutional investors but the market has not received it well in comparison to its IPO peers (Q4 2003-Q2 2004)
*the management team is inexperienced and will go through the growing pains of running a public company
*it would not be considered an M&A target by pharma (see previous posts)
*the TA patterns would indicate that the floor is around 7.50 and won't move significantly without news
overall that means the phase II data for that drug better look good otherwise the institutional investors will start to dump
again i hope this provides you with more clarity on this issue and an understanding of the intentions on this board
why such a handle?
a)maybe i work at one of the ibanks who didn't get a piece of this deal
b)maybe i am an ex-employee
c)maybe i am a current employee
e)maybe i work at a competitor
d) maybe i am an outsider and i create similar handles on other boards and once in a while drop a couple posts to discourage the message board trollers(?)
e)maybe it doesn't matter and who cares
I know what a Dutch oven is and I will tell you it doesn't "smell" that good...seems like the Google boys don't want to share with WallStreet so I'm afraid an "example" needs to be made.....