@kiwig you are in a serious state of delusion. You have been for a few years. Looking for that multi bagger. What BS you going to say now?
Hotcopper posters should know the BS about this company. Their timelines always change, just BS again and again.
Some posters say it's cheapest blood based CRC test in the world. BS from posters/long term holders as well as peak price purchasers that got a feel of FOMO as well.
The story is great just like other biotechs that have failed. A product that is innovative, transformational, world class, patent protected, saving lives and it goes on and on and on.
It has no resources nor connections and networking to get traction into pharma/biotech nor will it ever in my opinion. They have no partnerships, yet they have been saying for years that they are in talks. They can't even organise a NON-BINDING agreement with a distributor.
Hundreds of $ millions needed. They do cap raisings to get through a year or two and as @ShmoShady has pointed out..........but there's more (1-2 options for 3 shares held. Total cap raising a pittance of a few million dollars. Give me a break.
Institutions here and abroad have not been interested so what does that say?
Fidelity people as Shmo pointed out is most likely closely associated with OB. You must remember that funds in Fidelity are not the company's but rather their clients. The pittance amount of say 3 million dollars spread across say 2000 clients as part of their portfolio would be $1,500 of a clients investment.
That's a huge proportional amount of a Fund (NOT) that looks to achieve say 6-10% returns for clients after management fees.
If the below doesn't get you back to reality not sure what will.The real reason so many Australian biotechs fail, according to one of sector’s top investors
Australia’s love of a bargain is hurting fledgling biotech companies, says a top investor who fears the nation risks missing out on a global boom in the sector.
His warning is despite Australia being home to one of the world’s biggest biotech companies, CSL, which has grown to a market value of $120.14bn since it was privatised in the 1990s.
But for every CSL, hundreds more biotech companies fail or are swallowed up by overseas big pharma firms, which has sparked the phrase “valley of death”, given the lack of funding the sector attracts to achieve billion dollar paydays and mass commercialisation.
Charles Williams, managing director of HB Biotechnology – an arm of investment firm Harper Bernays – says raw funding is only part of why homegrown biotech firms struggle to succeed.
While Melbourne has established abiomedical precinct at Parkville– becoming one of the world’s top five centres of its kind, Dr Williams says Australia still fails to compete with the US and Europe when it comes to commercialisation.
A key reason for this is a lack of understanding among investors, particularly on the value inflection points in the biotech sector.
“The frustrating thing from a capital markets point of view is a lot of investors because they a ‘generalist investors’ don’t appreciate how much capital is required for later-stage clinical trials,” said Dr Williams, who has a PhD in biomedical engineering.
He highlighted Immutep – a company specialising in immunotherapy which formerly counted Lucy Turnbull as one of its directors – as a prime example. The companyraised $80m this yearto complete a phase-three trial in non-small cell lung cancer treatment. It was also beginning a late-stage breast cancer treatment trial as well.
“They have a pipeline,” Dr Williams said.
“But I was hearing feedback around the market that they took too much money. If this was a company in the US seeking to do the same thing, that capital raise would be $US200m, not Aussie pesos, and no one would be complaining that they’re raising too much money to properly fund their trials.
“It’s just that sort of mentality that I scratch my head. I know people don’t like getting diluted. But one of the worst things you can do in this industry is have your companies undercapitalised and part fund your clinical trials. Because then everybody will gets annoyed that they have to raise money at a lower share price again.”
Investing in biotech is typically considered to be not for the faint hearted and risky. Not everything that enters clinical trials succeeds and capital is burned very quickly. But Dr Williams draws parallels with junior resource stocks.
“There are so many, let’s call them junior explorers, and quite frankly, they’re speculative. They are typically out in the west. So many of them fall over too. And it’s the business case and the challenges that are not dissimilar between the two.
“To be honest, it’s important that you find those assets in biotechnology and borrowing a little bit from the tech sphere is failing them fast. Don’t have these companies that keep raising capital, trying to flog a dead horse, if it doesn’t work, kill it and move on to the next one.
“You’re soaking up capital for something that could be really worthwhile.”
Just look at Mesoblast – the shares of which have dived more than 56 per cent in the past year to 37c after it received aknock-back from the US Food and Drug Administration for the second time.
The FDA has requested more information from Mesoblast – including a trial completed among adults – before its approves the company’s stem cell-focused drug, remestemcel-L, for use on children suffering from a rare and deadly condition: acute graft versus host disease.
The decision has set Mesoblast back at least 12 months, and the company has been forced to slash its cash burn rate by about 40 per cent and limit spending on its other pipeline of products, to make the $70m it has in the bank as of April last as long as it can.
“It’s now more than 10 years ago, mesenchymal stem cells were a real thing that people were interested in. And there was probably a window of opportunity there,” Dr Williams said.
“Ten years later, I don’t know of a single other company that’s still working with mesenchymal stem cells on a therapeutic option outside of Japan. I feel that the markets just moved on and they (Mesoblast) haven’t.”
Mesoblast chief executive Silviu Itescu, however, maintains remestemcel-L has the potential to prolong and save the lives of many potential patients, highlighting survival rates of 63 per cent after one year, 51 per cent at two years, and 49 per cent at four years.
This compares with survival rates for the only FDA-approved drug, ruxolitinib – which can only be used on adults – of 40-49 per cent per cent after one year of treatment and 25-38 per cent at two years.
But it is a pointless argument, if remestemcel fails to gain regulatory approval.
Dr Williams said the development of the Melbourne Biomedical Precinct at Parkville – which also includes the Royal Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre as well as CSL new “incubator” for fledgling biotechs at its new head office, was “definitely a step in the right direction”.
“But it’s not just about the facilities but also attracting the talent. You have a look at how much people will get paid to run, even start-up biotechs over in the US and what they get paid over there. It’s no wonder there’s a bit of a struggle to get them in.”
And Dr Williams is not alone. Martyn Myer, the chair of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity,told The Australian last Decemberthat the nation hasn’t done enough to commercialise its research.
Mr Myer knows the sector well. For the past 22 years, Mr Myer has chaired ASX-listed neuroscience company CogState, which has a market value of about $327m and has focused on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease.
“I understand the pitfalls of the scientific journey and the sometimes frustrating pace for commercial development. But nevertheless, I also understand that Australia has never done enough to commercialise its terrific medical research,” he said.
“I mean, we have some good examples, but for a country of our size – if you think of Switzerland or Sweden, which are smaller than us, and they have great companies in the space – I tell anybody who will listen we should have 100 CogStates in and around Parkville.”
10 COMMENTS
It’s an excruciating process here in Australia for sure! For med tech companies that actually manage to complete substantial clinical trials, they then face the astronomical red tape of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). For example the discovery within our shores of a globally superior, low cost, protein marker blood test for colorectal cancer screening, by the name of Colostat. Emanating from 20 years of research by the CSIRO, suitable for mass population screening, the test has already completed successful clinical trials which proved it to be more accurate than the current screening method (poo test). Imagine the lives saved if people could more easily be screened, not to mention the treatment cost savings. Interestingly, the UK, Europe and NZ have already approved it for use. The company have embarked on the task of commercialising in those countries, but not so in Australia where ridiculous hurdles have been placed in its pathway. This test could well be the next Cochlear success story, a sensational life saving technology… if our authorities don’t stifle it that is!I agree the TGA is part of the problem here, blocking us from buying for example Viraleze from starpharma which was funded and developed here and now only available in half the world eg NZ, EUROPE, ASIA. You can’t even import it hereHaving worked in a very small biotech startup, that failed, I think the problem is indead to little venture capital which promots a business model which relys on quickly gaining he interest of large pharma for a buyout before the money runs out.
This buyout or bust model creates a speculative goldrush mentaility with a lot of grand promises made about potential billion dollar markets, never delivered.
The reality is small Australian biotechs are even a worse speculative bet than the penny dreadful mining companies we are used too.Ah; the new version of a silicon valley 'A Parkville CogState Tent City ;and why not .Within any fledgeling industry oversight must be containable for safe growth and practices . Close off the 'lone ranger and you increase Investors ;let him join the crowd and gain stated minimum experiences . Some form of universal oversight is required me thinksI am the founder of ResApp Health (ASX:RAP), an Australian biotech snapped up by Pfizer late year for $187m for a >10x return for shareholders from its debut on the ASX in 2016. I don’t know why the author of this article labels Australian biotechs either failing or being snapped up by Big Pharma as a negative? Yes, there are failures, but their are also successes and being acquired by Big Pharma is a big win for shareholders and the sector as a whole.(Edited)“Martyn Myer, the chair of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, told The Australian last December that the nation hasn’t done enough to commercialise its research.”
This statement is absolutely correct. It is emblematic of a problem that Australia has had in government under-resourcing of research developments since the 1950s. Inventions at that time, by Aussie scientists, which went on to be global scientific trendsetters, such as the atomic absorption spectrometer and the gas chromatographic flame ionisation detector dominated chemical, materials and pharmaceuticals research for more than 20 years, and which had to be sold cheaply to US manufacturers for commercialisation because Australian governments were too tentative and too risk-averse to put serious money into developing the sort of science and technology industries which now benefit small European countries like Austria, Sweden, Switzerland and Denmark. These countries are now technological powerhouses compared to Australia. The present writer was trying to compete for such government-based development funding in the 1990s, when the success rate for applications was a pitiful 1%, when it should have been 10-20%, like other funding sources such as the ARC and the NHMRC. Australian governments should now be putting serious cash into biomedical, pharmaceuticals and nuclear development to set up this country for the second third of the 21st century.If you like losing money invest in Australia biotechs. Never again for me.Biotechnology is a high risk business. But the focus should always be on the patient. The probability of success of a new biotech project is very very small - less than 1% chance of success. Even if a project gets through Phase 1 trials, the probability of success is still 10% or less. And even more problematic for oncology projects. But for most projects, the TGA is irrelevant, as most biotechs target either the USA or European markets.It is high time the Australian government stepped in to assist to inform our friendly USA government that the FDA behaviour towards Mesoblast is a situation up with which we will not put.
Ann: Receipt of First Tranche of $1.69m in R&D Tax Incentive, page-8
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 4 more messages in this thread...
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese opens the new CSL global headquarters and centre for research and development in Parkville.
HB Biotechnology managing director Charles Williams.
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
What is really striking for me is that if I look at Switzerland and Sweden - they don't have the academic research firepower of Parkville. So the problem seems to be downstream. Is it the investors as argued above ... or maybe the (literal) elephant in the room, CSL?