Not entirely, Jock.
I think there have been some errors along the way - particularly during the Covid period related to manufacturing (which set us back considerably) and the route taken that ended us up in Leiden. I say these were errors, because to a large extent they were foreseeable, took the company down an unnecessarily risky testing pathway, arguably distracted attention and diverted scarce resources away from core business, and (IMO) different decisions should have been taken at the time. I would go so far as to submit that the decision to pursue the use of MPL in Covid at that time was a poor one.
Then there are developments along the way that have caused us to adjust the approach being taken that would have been difficult to foresee. Some of these relate to trials, but what we're seeing there is the scientific method in action. For example, with sound justification at the time, the current canine trial was designed to focus on achieving SD by day 28 in a single cancer - B-cell lymphoma. As the trial has progressed, it's become pretty clear that the endpoint established during the trial design phase - SD by day 28 - is not well aligned to the commercial niche the product looks likely to fill - that is, a trippling of life expectancy with minimal side effects and better quality of life. Couldn't have been known at the time - so in that sense, not an error - but certainly a driver of delay and may well result in an awkward announcement along the lines of "didn't hit the predetermined end point, but we're moving forward anyway". I guess we'll know that soon enough.
To some extent, even the current MND trial has taken the company in an unplanned direction that has delayed the pursuit of human cancer trials. While there are most certainly some significant upsides - for example, being grant-funded to generate Phase 1 data that can be used to pursue additional human trials - the MND trial came out of left-field. I'm certainly not suggesting that the company should not be pursuing the use of MPL in MND, just making the observation that it's a deviation from the path outlined earlier on in the journey that (I suspect) was only taken because grant money was on the table at a time that the company was short of funds due to poor decisions made during the Covid period.
Of course, agile company management is important and the ability to recognise emerging opportunities and pursue them is a positive attribute. However, with such limited resources at the company's disposal, deviations from established goals require very careful consideration.
So, am I completely okay with the timeline? No, not completely. However, hindsight is always 20/20 and I expect I would have fallen foul of some of the same errors if I was in management's postition at the time.
The point of my previous post was that, it seems to me, some of what has SH agitated really is pretty normal for small biotech stocks - a segment I've invested in for about 20 years now (making me feel old!), and one in which setbacks are part of the journey, the trials seem endless, SH almost always think the BoD is in it for the lifestyle, SH almost always think they could do a better job, etc. etc. In my experience, keeping track of the fundamental reasons I invested in these companies has delivered the biggest rewards, while losing patience and making emotional decisions has cost me every time.
From what I'm seeing in PAA - and have seen for a good while now - the data is building, we're getting closer to some big value inflection points, and the commercial applications for the drug are coming into sharper focus. I am confident that the need to deliver a commercial outcome is not lost on the BoD - who have significant skin in the game - and I fully expect news on that front later this year.
Could the comms be better - yes, but they have improved. Does that matter lots in the long run - not really, because it's always been my view that the driver of value for PAA will be the commercial outcomes negotiated for MPL in multiple applications, and they will speak for themselves. A couple of wild examples (give me some rope here to make the point), but Birkshire Hathaway, CSL, FMG (you get the idea) aren't doing anything to try to attract new investors. The results to the talking.
Biotech certainly does test the patience, and that's jarring to some, but I've learnt along the way that it's not free money - it takes conviction, loads of patience, a decent appreciation for the science - and probably an innately optimistic outlook. For some people, it's not worth the ulcers!
Cheers
Densy
Expand
(20min delay)
