Holdencf Wrote:" If you own this for a buyout you own it for the wrong reason. If you own if for the fundamental long play then sit tight and relax. We have great data and Monarch will produce more great data. Chill."
Exactly my sentiments. Well stated, Holdencf.
I am curious when we might expect the corporate fiscal Q4 report and CC. In past years it was around the third week of November, however with the AASLD meeting occurring on 13 Nov, I am wondering when the
CC might take place. The CC would likely be the next opportunity to learn more about how the company is progressing. AD provided us with a rear view mirror perspective on their research, and I am curious what they will add to both AASLD and the Q4 CC. It's not that far off from now.
HP Wrote: "a sustained reduction in s-AG, with before and after liver biopsies showing a reduced presence of the virus in the liver can prove to be very beneficial to patients, as an ongoing treatment!...NOT FC "
HP, you are absolutely correct on this point, and I am disappointed in this ongoing dialogue speculating FC. At this time, a continued drug therapy that reduces viral load would be an incredible achievement and place ARWR far ahead of its competitors.
I have held ARWR stock for well over a year now, however I have always treated that holding as speculative. It is a small cap biotech that is researching a relatively new field of pharma. My interest in it has not really been as an investment but in ARWR's scientific research. What they are accomplishing is fascinating. So many thoughts and questions, I would love the opportunity to sit down with CA and BG for an hour or three.
As a consequence, I have limited the value of that ARWR to rather small percentage of total holdings. In the past, I made reference to it being analogous to planting a few seeds in the garden next to the house. Those seeds have now started to grow rather nicely, and if AD/Liver Summit turns out to be as I suspect, those seedlings are will be supplemented with others and transplanted to the main field i.e. I will consider it less speculative and it will deserve a higher percentage of my overall holdings.
End, you are absolutely correct. It is a business, however from my perspective, the less your competition knows the better. I would prefer they keep the presentation tight, scripted and not divulge anymore than management deems is required. This might not be a popular message on this board, however I have always believed in the notion that less is sometimes better.
HP Wrote: "If you are truly a long investor, AD is a confirmation day, and not a trading day"
Amen to that.
HP Wrote: "I could not care any less what happens to the price today"
My exact sentiments. This is an stunning achievement, and it continues to validate this company's research, as well as the professionalism and focus of its management. More importantly, what ARWR has accomplished has the potential to ease needless suffering and untimely death. This is far more important than pps. This is really remarkable. My congratulations and respect to ARWR.
Ram, I completely agree with your sentiments regarding a sale of ARWR. I too don't believe that is anywhere in the cards, and I apologize if my initial response suggested that. I do think a research and marketing agreement is feasible in the future. With whom is anyone's guess, but certainly NVS, GILD and Roche
would be interesting prospects.
Lastly, in spite of getting some of our questions answered, I suspect AD will bring up far more questions for all of us to ponder.
HP, you correct. Ram's statement does have merit. My reply was not made to suggest that didn't. In addition, I do hope we are not talking past one another, however any potential marketing partner would certainly see more of what ARWR has than what we know and what is likely to be presented at an AD. I have little doubt there has much activity behind closed doors at ARWR, and we will likely hear about it much, much later. Witness the nine chimps. My point is that sometimes a business weighs the cost of an investment versus its benefits. Its cost, and importantly, its terms become more onerous as competition unveils itself. I would think it would not be far fetched to see a marketing agreement set up to issue milestone funding with an ultimate marketing split in the event the product does make it to market. The investing entity is protected based on the milestones; ARWR's financing with regard to the product is reasonably secure as long as they are successful and both companies share in the profits when the product makes it to market. Of course this is pure and utter speculation on my part, however I suspect it has been done before.
Thanks again for your reply. I do appreciate hearing yours as well as Rams' and other's thoughts. This is an exciting time for ARWR and its research, and I am watching closely.
RAM Wrote:. "If I were GILD I would not touch a company until I see a trial with significant human sample size meeting an endpoint. Arwr Not there yet for hbv and p2a won't be an answer."
And by the time you reach that point, be it a GILD, NVS, etc., all will want into the business. It is recognizing the value of the research and its worth early on and making that investment before anyone else steps in is where the a company wins or loses. These are hard, difficult decisions. They do have risk but are not necessarily gambles. Of course, failure can and does occur, however it is a matter of how you conduct your DD in regard to the company's research and business that mitigates that risk and potential for failure.
By now everyone should have realized ARWR has lined up the best in class of KOL's for this presentation on 24 Sept. This is as much, if perhaps more a presentation of scientific findings than just a forum for investors and analysts. I have little doubt that any serious entity interested in HBV research is going to be signed up for the webcast or actually in attendance. This certainly will include competitive companies in the field.
HP Wrote: "I am very excited about AD, to be honest. Not for the price to rise for me to sell, but, for validation of this company's accomplishments, and for recognition of this management teams strength and planning capabilities, both of which are mandatory for the long term success of DPC as a RNAi drug, and NON-R/NAi drug delivery system."
My exact sentiments. The science is so incredibly compelling and should have a bright future. AD will likely be fascinating, and I am completely intrigued. I am really excited to hear the presentations.
Tene Wrote: " Chimp study does not carry the weight of human clinical trails......."
Tene, with all due respect, I believe you are somewhat incorrect in your assumption. HBV research and subsequent human trials, in all likelihood cannot be conducted without the initial inclusion of higher level primates. The FDA and credible biotech analysts understand this. Please consult the 2015 abstract entitled, 'Chimpanzee Model for Hepatitis B Virus Infection' written by Stefan F. Wieland of Scripps. It is published in the Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine. I cannot provide the link here, however it is easily searchable using your favorite search engine. I pointed out its availability to the MB early yesterday.
There is an interesting 2015 abstract entitled, 'Chimpanzee Model for Hepatitis B Virus Infection' written by Stefan F. Wieland of Scripps in the Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine. I cannot provide the link here, however it is easily searchable using your favorite search engine. I recommend carefully reading it.
The abstract's editors should be no surprise. As a final comment, we do so much for animals, and I am grateful they do so much for us.
Highflier Wrote: "All three doctors listed here have previous/current relationships with Arrowhead....."
Let me put it to you this way: If Ichiro Suzuki, Ken Griffey, Jr and Randy Johnson showed up to play on your team, would you tell them no because they all played at one time or another for the Seattle Mariners?
In terms of liver disease research, these three gentlemen might possibly have the same stature.
Deemane Wrote: " I think the new findings will contradict Wall Street's expectations for the trials. I am long this company and don't believe in shorting stocks. This is a fault of mine, but I would never invest my hard earned money in a company that I don't believe in..."
I agree with you about the new findings. I also don't short stocks, except on very, very rare occasions, however I am seriously considering shorting ALNY prior to the scheduled Liver Summit (AD) in New York on 24 Sept. I have to give this much more consideration, however recently it has been on my mind.
Thanks Post and Big. I don't know why I missed/don't recall that. These three alone giving a presentation would pack a room. This is going to be exciting.
Tene and SG could you kindly inform me where you found the information citing these three gentlemen will be attending the Liver Summit (AD) on 24 Sept? I seemed to have missed this info. BTW, these three represent some of the best and the brightest in their respective fields. Their attendance alone would likely draw a number of researchers and others active in the field.
"Assign a market cap of 10 x revenues = $170b.
And, THAT is why I'd vote NO to any buyout offer, especially for $15b - $20b"
I completely agree, HP. There is absolutely no reason why ARWR would feel compelled to offer itself to any entity. The idea makes no sense.