People in Biota have long memories. Some of us remember holding...

People in Biota have long memories. Some of us remember holding stock in BTA when Zanamivir (or Relenza) on the cusp of FDA stage III approval and the price reached something like $9.75. Only to have the approval rightly or wrongly rejected on that day and /or delayed until some months later and it never again got to those heights when it was approved.

Then when approval was granted the BTA business model, in how they derive revenue from such great research and product development, has been seen to be very.....flawed... some would say, i.e. their relationship with GSK. And no this has not been normalised i am sure from the outaside looking in we would agree. The business model is dictated by management most likely driven by their measure and acceptance of risk and availability of funds. We know they are ultra conservative, hence an indication of their acceptance of risk. This is all investors have to go by in terms of history and what they remember of BTA when it discovers and advances a product through trials. Also compare to Lanamivir which has succeeded in trials in Japan only and is licenced out. Barring the first reporting period which got us all excited barring the products ability and market nothing tangible, i.e. further results in the form of revenues to BTA have got us excited. This may be weighing on potential BTA investors minds now when they are doing their reserach to buy the a BTA share.

If FDA apporval is unhindered this time around i still think we need another business model wherein our revenues are not reliant on the efforts of a third party whom can start and stop those efforts as they desire for their own perceptions and business reasons.

As such management will need in my view to take some risks in determining the need to change, 'changing tack' and arriving at a new business model. In hindsight it can't be as risky as BTA's relationship with GSK has appeared to be in the Zanamvir agreement.

Cheers