oops, only 1 out of 5 mice

G'day
I'm just peeved I missed the run :-)
From todays smh
cheers
Rod

Solbec soared when one mouse lived
By Rebecca Urban
November 26, 2004

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
In an example of the market trading on less than complete information, Solbec Pharmaceuticals shares rose almost 70 per cent after it announced that its cancer drug Coramsine had induced remission of mesothelioma in mice. There was no mention in its statement of the number of mice treated or cured, or the testing method.

When called, Solbec revealed that in fact five mice were tested - two did not respond to treatment and died of cancer, two overdosed and died and the remaining mouse (with an emphasis on the singular) went into remission.

Solbec business development manager Greg Barrington said the data was left out for simplicity. "When you put in too much detail you're told the market doesn't understand or that it's not relevant," he said. "We're trying to improve the quality of our announcements."

Such quality seems to be passing most investment analysts by, however. A survey of 10 life science analysts have accused the biotech sector of keeping investors in the dark over their clinical trial work by ignoring industry reporting guidelines introduced more than six months ago. At the top of the list of complaints is the lack of detail in company announcements about their clinical studies.

"The lack of transparency around the reporting of clinical trial results by biotech companies is a concern," said Dianne Glenn, associate director with stockbroker eG Capital.

"Some companies, such as Pharmaxis and Progen, maintain very high standards with their reporting but others could be considered very lax."

Three of the 10 analysts surveyed rated the general standard of reporting as poor, while the remainder rated the sector - which includes pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies - as average.

Many believe the Australian Stock Exchange and AusBiotech Code of Best Practice for Reporting have yet to improve the way in which clinical trial results are reported to the market.

Queensland Investment Corp's biotechnology analyst Lawrence Gozlan believes that companies are too superficial in their reporting because they are concerned that investors won't understand the detail.

"Uniformity in reporting standards will enable investors to understand the significance of the announcements better and make the biotech market more efficient," he said.

Released in April, the industry's Code of Best Practice is a working document recommending a set of criteria that companies should release to the market at the start and end of a clinical trial, including endpoints, patient numbers, method of treatment and dosage, recruitment schedule or adverse events. But out of about 100 listed companies, few have attempted to follow the guidelines.

AusBiotech, the industry peak body, next week will announce an advisory group comprising company chiefs, analysts and industry specialists to help refine the working draft after concerns were raised about the level of disclosure required.

Executive director Anthony Coulepis said the industry wanted to be assured that the reporting code was workable before it was formally adopted.

"I look at what's happening now and, without disrespect to anybody, if there are no rules then anything goes and consequently you can't say some reports are bad and some are good," Dr Coulepis said.

Tolhurst Noall's Martin Ashdown wants to see a more stringent approach by the ASX in ensuring that companies provide adequate disclosure to the market. "You must understand, in the stockmarket, people make money off the backs of those who lose it," he said.