Calvo Wrote: 'That the upcoming Asian Conference is being sponsored by GILD and ARWR is the only HBV company being invited'
This is correct, although I recall there may be another commercial sponsor, however I wouldn't read any more into it than that. This is a fairly new, annual academic conference, and ARWR management accepted (wisely, IMHO) an invitation to attend. The opportunity to introduce ARWR on a personal level to other researches and academics in China cannot (again, IMHO) be overstated. This is potentially a huge
market for ARWR, and it is important that they are accepted there. As I have previously stated, I have come to the conclusion that validation and acceptance of ARWR's research and findings by the academic and research community is paramount to CA's and BG's business philosophy.
My bad, Barnabus. I did sound contradictory. I am sorry. I should have stated, " ...there are a few other issues that I would be concerned about OTHER than the security of the patent." I see now why I caused the confusion.
That being stated, I think the patent security is a complete and utter non-issue. I did not think it was of any significance when discussed in the past, and with respect to you and Dothemu, I don't now.
Barnabus Wrote: 'It also appears you are saying you are more concerned about the patent than anything else....'
The patent is not one of my concerns, and has never been one of my concerns.
Dothemu Wrote '...but even meritless patent disputes are often the price of success when there's a huge market to fight for....'
So are 'meritless shareholders' suits......Interesting that ARWR produced stunning and incredible results in October 2014 and endures a lawsuit as a consequence.
The speculation... and yes, it is only pie-in-the sky speculation that DPC isn't completely protected by its patent... is just that: completely unsubstantiated speculation. Honestly, there are few other issues I would be concerned about at this point in time than the security of the patent. As Dothemu pointed out, this has been previously discussed -- ad nauseam. Lastly, this sort of discussion just wakes up the trolls and has them running around in circles with their underwear pulled over their heads.....
HP Wrote: 'Honestly, if I had my way, ARWR wouldn't publish anything until they had a complete FC rate established.'
Amen to that! I appreciate the fact that ARWR management is closed lip about its current research. It is apparently frustrating to some shareholders and certainly analysts, however it is responsible and prudent behavior when competitors are watching you. Why chuck your hard work down the drain by announcing
results that other companies will use to make you disappear.........?
Had to chuckle when reading your reply, Post. Certainly my error indicated my usage of the English language wasn't at its peak at that moment, and I wish Jimmy might have been peeking over my shoulder and giving me a little guidance before I pushed that pesky 'Post' button. ......
JG Wrote ':... In any case, the 3 of them have an hour, 20 mins each....'
And a discussion (Q&A) period after the three presentations.....
Yikes!!! 'Piqued' my curiosity too....I need to go to remedial English classes....
Post Wrote '......He's upper management, after all. If it's just a generic discussion of animal models, are we to conclude that he just has a special interest in this area? ........Is he going to discuss other NHPs? Dr G(!) is going to go all the way to China to talk about other NHPs?!....
Peaked my curiosity too, Post. That's a long trip to and back, however it appears to be an academic event. I have come to the conclusion that Drs. G & A are first and foremost academics. What I mean to say is, that I think they feel it is extremely important to both that (their) ARWR's research is vetted, approved and supported by the academic community. In addition, this may be laying ground work in front of what may well be ARWR's greatest market in terms of number of patients and providers by going to and supporting this relatively new annual event in China. Regardless, I think it is a smart move.
Naga Wrote '....The simple stuff is that you don't move into a new facility, hire new web designer, change your name and have working relationship with GILD on the Monarch trial if you are going out of business...'
Bingo. Interesting how 'simple' this is but appears to have been generally lost in the conversation. Why also this intense focus on partnerships as an apparent sole means to fund research and operations? There are a number of funding constructs that might be considered to acquire additional funds. Here is a bit of weekend heresy: What if ARWR stated, 'The heck with partnerships and collaborations. We're going do this on our own.' ....
Post Wrote: '...the guidance they have given here puts them at serious legal risk...'
Post, thanks for the input. Seriously, I am curious how you determined a secondary (that lowers the price from here) would be a legal risk. Could you kindly explain more broadly here? Thxs.
Henry, why don't you kindly outline to all of us the possible funding mechanisms that exist for ARWR to fund its ongoing operations and research. That might be more enlightening than your IR inquiry.
Wyattkap Wrote: 'Take a NAP folks and come back in two months.'
Seriously, perhaps some of the best investing advice I've read on this board.
Lam Wrote: '... If management did not wish to put the SCIENCE (i.e. trial results) on the table as a bargaining chip, they would have ALREADY raised cash with another secondary! The fact they haven't, should tell you CA is sincere when he says he wants the SCIENCE to define the partnerships.."
Good point. Lam. I would like to posit that it might be in ARWR's benefit to conduct a secondary. Preferably but not necessarily on the announcement of 'seminal' news. With research and operating funds secured, the price of a partnership would likely become more expensive to the entity(s) wanting to partner or collaborate. Dothemu recently brought this to the attention of the MB, and it is an intriguing idea. Regardless, this notion on the MB that ARWR is 'running out of money' is simply NOT correct.
Dig Wrote:'..... It would be nice if they were told to tone it down a little....'
Dig, I can assure you that responsible corporate lawyers representing companies involved in a
unresolved, active shareholders lawsuit, will vet and instruct the company's employees who are
disseminating information for public consumption on what can and will be said relative to any potential downstream legal liability. The easiest thing for these employees to say is nothing or as little as
possible under these kinds of circumstances. We can Infer all we might about collaborative deals,
however the hard facts are we simply don't know anything and they sure as heck ain't telling.....at least
at this point in time.
Dothemu Wrote: '.... I don't by any means think that a secondary is out of the question, BTW, but it just won't bother me if it happens. The dilution will be de minimis relative to the size of the likely deal.'
Especially if the secondary is it is made on the heels of major news.....
Postcalloff Wrote: '.....I wouldn't be surprised if such a person has felt resentment over having to keep his mouth shut for the past two years...'
Certainly any rational person would feel some resentment. The engaged and patient person attempts to use it to their advantage.
If you go back to that last CC and listen to CA's response to the questions regarding partnerships by RBC's analyst, he initially started to go on a certain track but clearly and abruptly stopped himself. CA provided, instead, what I consider a rote response to the question. He knew, very well in advance of the CC he would be asked this question, and he answered with a prepared response.
In the past two years this management has clearly and consistently demonstrated as being further ahead of where we think they are at any particular moment. Based on this performance, why should we expect that not to be the case at this point in time? Lastly, they have accomplished this without any cheerleading. Frankly, I am quite content with the manner in which they are communicating. Why change what seems to be working well?
Mr. Red Rover Wrote: 'It's driving me NUTS. Is everybody else seeing this too?'
Yes, but it seemed to return to normal after my fourth margarita.
Ssheykhrez Wrote: 'Longer he waits the other side will take a advantage knowing how desperate we are for $ to run the operation....'
Not necessarily. ARWR is not dependent on partnerships to additionally fund its operations. There seems to be this continuing perception on this MB that this is ARWR's only recourse for operating funds. This notion is simply incorrect.
Warick Wrote: '....Communication, for whatever reason is vague. More than can be objectively explained....'
Warick, please. I wrote message below to the MB only a few hours ago.
'ARWR has been exceptionally cautious and disciplined in its communications since the October 2014 debacle and subsequent (and apparently ongoing) legal issues. These are very smart people and they are not going to allow themselves to be bitten by that dog twice. It is a fact, that as shareholders, you have to recognize and accept the messaging will be highly controlled and scripted.'
Everything they put out for public consumption will be vetted prior to publication. It is a simple fact. The company is in the process of defending itself from a shareholder lawsuit. Management will be very careful about what will be said and when they will make any public announcement.