They claim to be seeking collaboration deals for pre-clinical and clinical assets. IMO, they will keep 15029 in-house, progress 15001T & 15022 via Bayer, sell 15001 (the autoimmune being researched by the Dr. at Northwestern) outright, and make a collaboration deal for 15049 - all in the next 12 months. There are other potential candidates too.
Everybody plans on retiring eventually. Martin has never announced a specific date for that. He did announce his intention long ago to start selling stock in 2016 via a 105b-1 plan. However, he stated at the Feb call that the plan filing was dependent on market conditions, and the conditions were not right now. He said in Feb that he has not started selling via that plan and does not intend to discuss it further publicly.
During the call, Martin G. stated "...the often orders of magnitude premiums being paid by the industry for pre-clinical and clinical assets in the IO field compared to early stage collaborations..."
I take that as a hint they are targeting a deal like that. "orders of magnitude" means 10 to 100 times their market cap. The writing is on the wall.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Looks like some of those "dots" I mentioned a week ago (Dr. Pardoll etc.) became connected today. Many more such dots to be connected in the future.
With keywords familiar to CGEN investors like "collaboration","novel", and "Drew Pardoll" (who said CGEN has the best immunoncology pipeline in the industry), how is the investment community failing to connect the dots here?
BTW, I watched "The Big Short" last night. We're just early, not wrong.
I see FPRX as similar in many ways other than Market Cap. For example, similar amounts of immune checkpoint discoveries, similar advisory board, etc.. But, the Market places much more value on FPRX vs. CGEN. I hope CGEN will close the gap over the next year ("short-term"). Long-term, I look at PCYC as a model to strive for.
Another perspective is that the market values FPRX at 4 times the market cap as CGEN despite them being similar. So, CGEN is relatively undervalued.
Another quote from Martin from a recent CC hints at how close they are to a collaboration:
"However, it is important to note that, in general, reaching agreement on the basic terms and conditions insofar as they relate to this specific monoclonal antibody product or products of primary current interest to our potential partners, has not been a problem and therefore we are confident that these additional complexities will prove to only be a timing issue"
A more recent quote from Martin at the last CC:
"I’d like to comment, Anat. The statement was made that market is really frustrated by the lack of progress or achievements or whatever. I don’t recall exactly the wording that we chose, but the frustration since the Bayer agreement was signed. First, I understand the frustration. The frustration is because we haven’t announced any collaboration since that time.
If you look at the approximate two years since we signed the Bayer agreement, I would make the following statements. One, these two years have by far been the most significant years in the history of the company with respect to the achievements that we’ve made on the research side, on the development side, on almost any aspects of the science or the pipeline.
These two years, we have been absolutely phenomenal. Internally, we understand that that’s doesn’t help. It doesn’t deal with the frustration because we just talk about it in generalities. The other comments that I will make is that with respect to collaborations in general, I don’t mean just the signing.
I know that your collaboration strategy involves having people who know what they are doing in business development, involves having packages of material ready to be reviewed. It involves having good validation, information, et cetera. It involves a relationship with multiple companies in the industry and a respect of those companies -- the company’s potential collaborators has to build a respect and confidence in your capabilities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Therefore, I would make a similar statement with respect to our collaboration activity. I would say that in the last two years, we have done more with respect to moving forward our collaboration activity than we did probably in all of the years up until that -- I wouldn’t say probably. We’ve done more since the Bayer agreement with respect to moving forward our collaboration activity than we did in the entire history of the company
Martin said very clearly 8 months ago that the investing community would "soon" see the type of news it has been waiting for. I took "soon" to be within 6-9 months, so he really needs to deliver on that promise "very soon".
If Raging Capital (RC) supports the merger, it will likely pass this time around since others (i.e. Gabelli fund) will also change to a YES vote to profit from the arb spread now that it is apparent there is no other interested buyer. RC may be buying more shares, not for votes (too late), but to profit from the arb spread and offset the loss they will take on those Puts. BTW, that was an amazing maneuver on the part of MLNX to push out the re-vote past RC's options expiration - it boxed in RC and punished them for their opposition as RC is likely losing $$ on those Put options.
You are mistaken. Raging Capital has purchased put options as a hedge against their huge long position. They have invested 50 times as much capital in their long position compared to the put options. If the stock tanks, their losses will be mostly offset, but they will certainly not profit.
Henry, I remember you writing that at GTF and jayjay even posted this week that your prediction came true. Don't you hate always be right about the problems with EZCH as an investment?
Hillary holds no public office now. How can she enact legislation to control drug prices? She is out of favor now - even Obama does not like her.
The Domino Analytics website was scheduled for a server upgrade almost a week ago and did not come back up. My contact said it is a temporary server problem, not an end of its service.
The progress demonstrated by Bayer validates CGEN's discovery platform. CGEN is the only biotech I know about who has extensive discoveries of novel checkpoints. The fact that their platform "discovered" known checkpoints essentially proves its efficacy via back testing. CGEN is the real deal.
Slide 63 states: "Collaboration on novel immune checkpoint regulators with Compugen. Antibody-based modulators on two novel immune checkpoints: CGEN-15001T and CGEN-15022 - two novel B7-like proteins thought to be involved in regulation of the immune system in immune-related disorders and in cancer.