all bashers and some pumpers who over interpret INO milestones. These types are hopeless detractors or pumpers.
The company is making progress, choosing collaborative projects pretty well and have demonstrated highly safe-significant active antibody responses among the projects started 3-4 years ago. Now that they have achieved these significant results, NIH, DOD and biopharma is getting more interested. But their business is still 95% service and the best they can expect is 20-30% of product production profit. Just the business model they have to follow. If they get one or two proprietary antigens that provide a breakthrough vaccine, then they will start to climb rapidly. This type of project would be totally supported by the collaborative service business of creating other companies vaccines.
I am counting the next 30 months as the final proof. Any BLAs for a vaccine before that time is just early milestones. Remember, the principle regulatory presentation is a joint venture. INO and the company that contracted for the vaccine. That makes a difference when Merck is the collaborating party. Or some other giant biopharma.
Just keep reading the headlines about milestones and scientific articles and keep a scorecard. Stay tuned.
There is not a huge profit in vaccines because of competition. $1-$2 per dose, if that. So that profit gets split up pretty dramatically unless the company making the vaccine owns the IP for the antigen. If the base antigen IP is provided by a Sponsor and INO simply puts it into the ring configuration to take advantage of the electorporation and cell depot method of immunization, the antigen rules. Without the molecule that creates an "insult to the immune system" there is no vaccine. That is why INO is partnering, collaborating, etc. But the question begs the answer, "What company owns the IP on the cervical cancer antigen?" If it is INO, then they have a good chance at getting the major chunk of the market. If another company owns the antigen, INO profits by making the vaccine and taking a royalty on top of that for a 20%-30% profit margin. The model that was pretty accurate for this type of collaboration was the pcutDOTorg model for collaborating in the development of Iplex for ALS patients. If INSM put up the IP and $25 in seed money, their profit margin wa going to be 43%. Look it up.
Microcap biopharmas have to develop their projects from good science. Otherwise they will go bust in 5-10 years. FDA keeps statistics and if you go through their website you will find that 70% of start-up biopharmas fail.
The best I ever did was Kensington Diamond of Canada being bought out by Shore Gold. Twenty-one cents CD became $8.35 CD.
But with the exception of holding Biopure too long, I have made at least 20% on every biopharma I have invested in. I chose the science first. Just to be honest, I also invested in Dobi Med about one year before their big contract with Russia, but they went bankrupt and no one picked up the technology (infra red) because of computerization of ultrasound imaging that showed irregularities. Their infrared machine, however, was validated by the recent use of blood flow methods for Alzheimers.