We are clearly on the same page. I worked for a biotech company that J&J acquired. The stock was at $27 and Novartis made an offer to buy the company. The CEO and the Board didn't like the fit so they had their investment bankers reach out to J&J. The company was sold to them for $54 a share. A similar deal for NVAX would be sweet. We need to add $20 per share to get that kind of deal.
The AVNR purchase by Otsuka may present a likely path. The company sent a justification for the sale of the company that outlined the deal after the deal was approved by the board. It seems that during negotiations with potential acquirers, the AVNR management identified their minimal price for the company. I don't know exactly how it happened, but in about a month the stock moved from below $10 up to $16 or so, just short of the price at which the company was sold. Let's just say that investment bankers know all the right people to make these things happen. So we shall see.
Sanofi with their Pasteur division has a worldwide vaccine business and they are very astute financial people who have grown their business with acquisitions and sales of assets. J&J is a terrific white knight acquirer that lets its divisions continue their own R&D while providing terrific sales, marketing, HR, and financial resources. Really there are a host of potential partners or acquirers out there for NVAX. Nevertheless, I'm one of the folks that would prefer that NVAX would remain independent until the valuation is $50 or so. Ha,ha! Just let Erck and his team continue to steadily build out the company and its remarkable vaccines.
Horcents, I like your post a lot and think that you may be right on the money with your observations. The flip side is that he already knows how he will handle the sales and marketing through collaboration with Gail Boudreaux and a contract sales and marketing contract organization. I don't think anyone on this board could possibly believe that Stan is making a stupendous mistake in overlooking how he will bring our vaccines to market. No worries here.
bballgm, it is great to be clear of many of the challenges associated with marketing and sales. The vaccine business seems to be more focused on manufacturing and distribution issues, following of course, the R&D.
Keuwiefuiefe, as I said, it is great to participate in the discussions here. Our AVNR experience is remarkably similar in terms of the advances and retreats, but AVNR had patent challenges from generic manufacturers that presented substantive roadblocks that were designed to slow the company's progress. FWIW, in comparison NVAX has a clearer path to substantial profitability. Thanks for your comment.
jd39souza, it is always terrific to see members of our AVNR crew here. I'm more confident about this ride than the last one. I wish more of our folks would join us. Monday should be fun!
Bytetwo, thanks for the shout-out for the Hogs! You are correct in thinking that outsourcing or partnering for specific strategic capabilities would enhance or speed the development of distribution for NVAX. If I have read some of the posts correctly about the bioreactors the partnership with GE, they could potentially shorten the vaccine supply chain, since they would move production closer to distributing points. Suffice it to say that Stan and the BOD have a myriad of decisions to make about manufacturing, contracting, and distribution issues, while at the same time they need to continue to focus on the R&D. I worked for a couple of small biotech companies when they were just introducing products into the market and you can't imagine all the issues that present themselves as distractions from minding that the critical objectives get the attention they need. That is the key motivation for outsourcing or partnering. But then, you know that very well!! Ha,ha! Stan must be having the time of his life.
Horcents, thanks for your note about the dinner in N.O. Gee, I wish I could have been there to renew friendships and meet the people I so respect from the AVNR bunker. I'm sure that Sarge and Falconi may have told you how we met. It was an extraordinary event. Hope to meet you one day.
Thanks, avnrinvestor, for your primer for an important influencers for the distribution of vaccines. I just posted regarding distribution and would be eager to get your observations about my line of observations. Just two former AVNR investors enjoying a similar ride with NVAX! Best to you this fine day!
For a period during my career in pharma I served as a director of national accounts. My team was responsible for securing formulary placements of our products to gain contracts to assure formulary placement, contract pricing, etc. We secured contracts that would make our products available on a diverse set of formularies within hospitals, medicare/medicaid, etc. Some of our products were prescribed by physicians while others were used in hospitals. For a small company by today's standards we had to cover many different contracting situations. We didn't have any vaccines, so that wasn't part of my experience. My experience is sufficient, however, to tell me that contracting to secure sales and distribution for vaccines is an entirely different endeavor than that for typical pharmaceutical products.
My general impression is that sales of vaccines is not so much sales as it is contracting to secure approval for government formularies and to get approval for U.S. and world distribution and use. So it is more likely that NVAX would need a relatively small national accounts team to establish contracts to secure distribution. I would say that a team of thirty people should be able to get the job done. Let me emphasize that our references to selling vaccines is not likely accurate. Vaccine distribution and use is quite dissimilar to the typical model for the pharma industry.
The addition of Gail K. Boudreaux to the NVAX Board is extraordinarily important. She knows all the executives of the diverse healthcare organizations that will provide formulary acceptance and distribution channels for the many NVAX vaccines, including those not in view at this point.
So with this in mind I started a bit of research and found an excellent overview of the distribution for vaccines. This should be of interest to all of us and further our education a bit.
Here's the article: Outsourcing vaccine supply chain and logistics to the private sector. Just search those terms.
Eve, I would argue that the principles of building a successful company haven't changed one iota since 1943. J&J sure didn't start as 200+ conglomerate. It started out as a band-aid company. We aren't talking about market dynamics, hedge funds, etc. Stan can't meaningfully change any of that. All he can do is focus on building his company the right way. Here's the credo. Tell me what you think isn't applicable today if you were building a company.
Whenever I read that any CEO should pay more attention to shareholders or do something to counteract what the market is doing to a company's stock price, I remember the Johnson & Johnson Credo and the list of values it enumerates. This document very clearly states the priorities for all JNJ employees and it most certainly guides their CEO. I am totally sure that Stan gets this. You hear it when he is on Cramer's show, in conference calls, and when he speaks at analyst meetings. He may not state it as JNJ does, but he most certainly has his head on straight in terms of his priorities. A friend of mine once said that that a rise in a company's stock price is the way that society rewards the company for doing things right. Sounds straight forward doesn't it?
￼Here's a little history lesson. Robert Wood Johnson, former chairman from 1932 to 1963 and a member of the Company’s founding family, crafted Our Credo himself in 1943, just before Johnson & Johnson became a publicly traded company. This was long before anyone ever heard the term “corporate social responsibility.” Our Credo is more than just a moral compass. We believe it’s a recipe for business success. The fact that Johnson & Johnson is one of only a handful of companies that have flourished through more than a century of change is proof of that.
If you want to read the J&J Credo just search those terms. See where J&J puts stockholders in their values that have guided them to become one of the planet's most successful companies. Go Novavax!!
We sure know the drill from our experience at AVNR. Tin hats on our heads, stay low in the bunker, pass the flask on occasion, and beat back the vermin! Persist until the victory is announced (ha,ha)!!
Threw a shoe! Wow. I can't imagine how exciting it must be to see your own horse running. What a great time of year to be at the races. Buy our friends a drink for me in N.O.
Horcents, gee I hate it when you use your good ole OK common sense to good effect here to speak honestly and forthrightly. It has to be a real drag for those who can't see past the nose on their face. Hope you enjoy this fine fall day!
Seriously, that's the end of this speculation! Mainlylobster has spoken and folks you can bank on him knowing what he's talking about! As Edith Ann would say, "That's the TRUTH"!
Novavax's Respiratory Vaccine Study Data Fail to Impress
Zacks By Zacks Equity Research
45 minutes ago
Novavax, Inc.’s NVAX shares tumbled 21.4% following the company’s announcement of top-line data from a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled phase II study on RSV F Vaccine for protecting infants via maternal immunization.
The study evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of RSV F Vaccine in healthy pregnant women. It also studied the trans-placental transfer of maternal antibodies induced by the vaccine, the impact of maternal immunization on infant safety during the first year of life, and RSV-specific antibody levels through the first six months of an infant's life.
The company stated that patients treated with RSV F Vaccine showed increased levels of antibodies, compared to insignificant change in the antibody levels of patients on placebo.
We note that Novavax stated that the first few months of the lives of infants are crucial since during this period they are the most vulnerable to RSV. However, investors may argue that the effect of the study results were not concrete enough to invoke demand for the vaccine by both patients and doctors. Benefits derived from the product may not be adequate to protect children from the impacts of the disease.