can someone point out where i am wrong?, page-8

(2) Tamiflu does not work against H1N1 - this highlights the need to have a balanced stockpile in case this also happens to the H5N1 strain.


Er: Who said it doesn’t ? Just does not do this well. At least it is orally ingestible.


(3) LANI is in phase 3 and it looks like a superior drug to both Tamiflu and Relenza - if it gets approved BTA will get a big RoW licensing fee plus ongoing royalties from the new anti-viral gold standard.

LANI if it passes phase 3 and this is never certain has to be marketed. And it will come head to head against generic Relenza made for next to nothing by the Indians and Chinese as it is almost out of patent.

Why would governments stock a take weekly drug costing say, $60, when they can get a , say $5.00 generic taken daily for a week that does the same thing? And this is for the proles on the fateful day that H1N1 mutates to person to person spread.



(4) BTA has approx $55m cash - it will take a lot of stuff ups to waste this money. This is possible but unlikely especially given most of its trials are paid for by its partners.
Do you know there annual cash burn? If so why not state what it is and how long it will last.

(5) The board has undergone change as promised - I dont know much about Jim Fox but I understand he is impressive. I dont know much about Richard Hill but he appears to be doing a very good job at SRX.
I know little about them either except what I could google. Neither appear to have any drug research or development experience.


For a company that does not manufacture and whose main purpose is to act as a PO box for the GSK cheques, it sure has a lot of expensive chiefs to monitor a lot of redundant Indians who await the statistical data from a phase 3 trial. I presume there is some active lab and Bunsen burner research though it is not clearly apparent from the releases. For a 30 year old research company you would have thought that they would have done a little bit more during that time. And don’t forget: they didn’t invent Relenza: it was discovered by CSIRO who spun off Biota to market it.

These expensive chiefs suck the company dry. That is partially why there is no dividend.



(6) BTA is not a broadly known stock - I would bet many institutions dont even know about BTA. I would also bet that they will only start following it once it gets bigger (e.g. mkt cap $200m+). If BTA gets to a larger market cap I would expect a lot more institutional interest in the company.

It is the third best know biotech on the ASX. And for all the wrong reasons. Most investors would not buy it even under deep anaesthesia.



(7) BTA has some other drugs in the pipeline - I dont really know much about them but they are there and I assume they would be worth something.


Yeh: a few orphan drugs that make Relenza look good. Can’t see them making money though.




(8) BTA is only trading at approx $40m above its cash backing - that means you get all the above for $40m!
See 5 and 6.