Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

công ty ChemoCentryx Message Board

too_much_sunshine 7 posts  |  Last Activity: May 28, 2015 1:13 PM Member since: Apr 14, 2007
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Now, I understand.

    by too_much_sunshine May 27, 2015 8:51 PM
    too_much_sunshine too_much_sunshine May 28, 2015 1:13 PM Flag

    Thanks, learning. I was actually invested in Progen (Brisbane area?) about 10 years ago, and being in the States I contributed to my timeslot in that 24 hours-a-day cast of YMB characters. It was late in my Progen ownership that I heard of Prana. I've followed them sporadically ever since, but only recently bought in.

    The potential for Prana seems significant. Either a partner or a few catalysts followed by a decent offering would provide the resources to exploit that potential. We'll see if they get either.

  • too_much_sunshine by too_much_sunshine May 27, 2015 8:51 PM Flag

    When I first came to this board, I balked when I saw there were scores or even hundreds of replies. Believe me, now I understand.

    Thanks for the great info, and thanks for keeping it front and center.

  • Reply to

    Partnership?

    by wtrzionsville Apr 21, 2015 12:01 PM
    too_much_sunshine too_much_sunshine May 26, 2015 7:16 PM Flag

    I prefer when management (of any company) keeps partnership talk to a minimum. That they state that a partnership is the strategy for CCX-140 (and vircirnon), and give general updates at the quarterlies, is good enough for me. These negotiations can take some time and follow a winding road. The landscape can change, both for the parties and in the space into which a given drug would potentially launch. With these changes, proposed terms can change. I, too, am waiting for a deal, or deals. But I'm not too surprised it's taken this long.

  • Reply to

    Reminds me of Icagen

    by too_much_sunshine May 22, 2015 12:57 PM
    too_much_sunshine too_much_sunshine May 24, 2015 11:34 AM Flag

    I think your analysis is solid, mobile.

    In light of your comments, I think one important aspect of Icagen as an analogy is that, even with multiple failures, Pfizer saw value in targeting ion channels, and therefore saw value in Icagen's platform and compound library. Trial design, indication or specific target may lead to failure, but the broader class of targets can still have great potential. Similarly, despite Lpath's failures (to what degree still TBD), Pfizer probably sees value in targeting bioactive lipids, and therefore values Lpath's platform for targeting them and the resulting portfolio of molecules they're starting to develop. The platform has value, even if iSONEP or ASONEP never reach the market.

  • Reply to

    Reminds me of Icagen

    by too_much_sunshine May 22, 2015 12:57 PM
    too_much_sunshine too_much_sunshine May 22, 2015 11:38 PM Flag

    No problem, mobile.

    As far as what Pfizer did, I think they did extend/restructure the deal once. Ultimately, after Icagen was down in the dumps following several failures it was sub-$1. That was 2010. In 2011 Pfizer bought them for $6.

  • too_much_sunshine by too_much_sunshine May 22, 2015 12:57 PM Flag

    Icagen had an ongoing collaboration with Pfizer starting in 2007. Their platform involved ion-channel blockade. They had a string of failures during a 3 year period but Pfizer stayed with them. They are now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.

    The point is that even with the platform failures, Pfizer still saw potential. Who knows what will happen, but it just lends some credence to the notion that Lpath is not necessarily doomed.

  • too_much_sunshine by too_much_sunshine May 13, 2015 6:54 PM Flag

    Investor reaction to the ONT-380 abstracts is pretty positive (admittedly from depressed price levels). The reaction to the neratinib (Puma) abstracts not so much-down 18% right now.

CCXI
8.00+0.10(+1.27%)Jul 2 4:00 PMEDT