Member Info for daringinvestor

Where the majority of the disagreements are arising is the way in which certain things have been handled by the management and I can’t disagree (In fact I think hardly anyone can disagree with that point!!).
I took some time out to have another look at the phase 2 trials and just wanted to discuss a few things or at least bring them to light…
The first thing is what do the IIEF Erectile Functions scores show?
A score greater than 25 on the IIEF Erectile function score indicates no ED with the maximum score being 30/30.
The phase 2 that was conducted included;
Mild cases of ED – These are those men that scored 22-25 on the IIEF erectile function score
Mild to Moderate cases of ED – These are those men that scored 17-21 on the IIEF erectile function score
Moderate ED - These are those men that scored 11-16 on the IIEF erectile function score
Severe ED - These are those men that scored 10 or less on the IIEF erectile function score
The study was strongly geared towards the mild and mild to moderate cases evident from the number of men from these categories that were taking part, i.e. 58%.
The phase 2 study showed a P value of less than 0.0001 for men in the mild and mild to moderate cases (score of 17 to 25). The mean IIEF score before the trial for this group was 21.3, so around the middle of the range. This improved to 23.1 for MED and remained at 21.3 for Placebo.
This was with a MED dose of 0.2% (0.6mg). This is being increase to 0.4% (1.2 mg) and 0.6% (1.8mg) which should help increase the IIEF scores further, thereby showing more statistical evidence for these group of men. It should also aid in improving the scores of the moderate and severe cases (we hope).
Back in 2005 a PK Study was conducted where 4 different doses were given to male subjects. These doses were increased to 0.083% (0.25mg) which showed increased blood flow as GTN levels were increased. Fast forward to today and the lowest dose we are currently using is 2.4 times that dose (which was then thought to be the highest possible safe dose!)… however I think it is crucial that we see a further jump in the IIEF Scores even for the mild and mild to moderate even if the moderate and severe cases do nothing. For example it would be good to see a mean score jump from 21.3 to 26 with the increased dosing for the mild and mild to moderates. The recent PK Study shows this may be achieved but until the trials are done we won’t know.

The other items on the IEFF questionnaire that have not grabbed much attention which should do (in my opinion) are the questions on
1 Orgasmic function
2. Sexual desire
3. Intercourse satisfaction
4. Overall satisfaction

continued.......

Firstly these companies have signed non-disclosure agreements when beginning licensing talks. They have had access to information that is not available in the public domain.

Secondly think very carefully about the following.
You have small biotech companies holding discussions with large multi national companies. If buying stocks in a company was allowed then every company out there would begin discussions with a small biotech, only to break discussions off and then capitalise (knowing fully well their actions would decimate the share price)
by buying shares in the company at dirt cheap prices....

Futura Medical is not the only one that finds itself in this place. There are plenty of companies out there that have held discussions and not come to an agreement and then for the share price to then collapse. Why have these companies not been taken over on the cheap?

I think you touched upon one of the factors in your message which was these things cannot be hidden and eventually become known

Secondly they have had access to information not available in the public domain

Thirdly the book build process is open to investors and not companies who have had access to information not available to other investors

I am sure the non disclosure agreements that were signed had clauses in there which stated that the company could not buy any shares in Futura Medical by itself or through a third party in the event of no agreement (specifically to protect Futura Medical should a situation arise where there was no agreement)

These things are incredibly complex with all sorts of legal ramifications.

Put simply if what you highlighted was allowed, it would spell doom for small biotechs as no one would ever need to license anything. You would simply opt to hold discussions and then break them off and capitalise on the resulting situation.

Good point but there’s a very good reason why they can’t participate

Will explain later as just popping into a meeting

Rhodi
Even if it does drop below 7p? So what?

For those who are invested to see the phase 3 results it doesn’t matter
For those invested to make some money in a few weeks I suppose it does.

If it does get to 5p (valued less than cash reserves) I’ll have to make a bid for the company!

So there are companies out there already operating in the Erectile Dysfunction Market. Each with their own agendas. If future Medical is to out license MED2002 they should be asking for a “significant” upfront in order to gain confidence that the other party will do what they say they will. Without a significant upfront, and “promised” future payments we will fall in the same trap as we have done in the past, especially as the product is still in development. The problem is to gain significant upfront payments, these companies want to see phase 3 data.
You may have picked up Futura Medical acknowledging that the product will most likely be sold, not licensed. This is a far simpler agreement as once it is sold, we are no longer dependent on the third party.
Considering all the above and what has gone on, would you really want a pharma company to gain 40% share of the company (which is effectively MED2002) for £5 million?
I’d much rather we investors get the chance to buy shares at these sort of prices rather than some pharma company who I wouldn’t trust the slightest.
My take is, we get the product ready, get the claims sorted out that the companies can make and sell it, as we have seen first hand that licensing with these companies just doesn’t work.
https://www.inc.com/stephen-key/8-reasons-why-licensing-agreements-fail.html
So let’s get this product through phase 3 part 1. Who knows, it may even get sold then…Then once we have the headline data, let these companies bid for it…especially as it stands a greater chance for getting OTC status than their existing medications.

At the end of the day we can agree to disagree too.

OK Let’s start from the beginning

Futura Medical signs a deal with SSL way back in 2005 I think it was, with the product (CSD500) still in development phase. SSL seemed to be dragging their heels as far as the development goes, possibly seeing CSD500 as a threat. SSL then gets taken over by Reckitts in 2010 who immediately go around changing terms and conditions for agreements SSL had previously. This was done on a global basis. For example this is what they did in India

“This happy story came to an end when SSL was taken over by Reckitt Benckiser, a global conglomerate. Reckitt Benckiser became TTK’s joint venture partner. It was dislike at first sight between both parties. Reckitt Benckiser wanted to rework the terms of agreement of the joint venture, which was very unfavourable to TTK. After a court battle, TTK bought out Reckitt Benckiser’s 49.8% shareholding for Rs 150 crore. The problem was that the company got the factories and technology, but did not have a product and brand. Reckitt Benckiser got the Kohinoor and Durex brands. This was in November 2012.”

https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/how-chennai-based-ttk-group-got-its-mojo-back-in-the-complicated-indian-condom-industry/1262586/

Reckitt’s did the above on a global basis including to Futura Medical, which eventually resulted in them handing back the rights. It should also be noted that CSD was still in development at this stage. One could argue they never had any intention of launching the product. After all, why would they launch a product and pay royalties to someone else which may have been around 20% whilst they own the largest condom brand in the world in a business that is very much brand driven.

This product then gets licensed to Church & Dwight whilst it is still in development (shelf life) and that company again returns the rights thereby destroying the reputation of the company and casting doubt of the product even though the product works! (Has anyone tried it?).. I tried the blue diamond brand and I was like an iron rod!

In hindsight, they should have never licensed it. The product should have been developed and then sold. This licensing business just doesn’t work because the control lies with the other party , who are quite often large companies.. Futura Medical does not even have the resources to take these guys to court if they didn’t honour their agreements.

Now we come to MED2002.
Bayer has their own product in partnership with Glaxo.
Pfizer and Eli Lilly have their own products
Eli Lilly signed a deal with Sanofi to get Cialis over the counter status, which they have not been able to do as of yet.
These products were never ever designed as over the counter products. They were designed as prescription products which presents challenges when trying to make the switch to OTC.

Continued...

“I now query the quality of the product as no Pharma wanted to stump Up 5 million for forty percent of the company”

The above statement is so wrong on so many levels that I don’t even know where to begin.

Well luckily for FUM the ED market is a big pie so provided they get on with the phase 3 trials (which they are doing) I’m happy.

As for other stuff that Pharma companies are working on. They’ve been trying for ages to get OTC for Viagra and so far the U.K. is the ONLY market viagra has OTC status.
Sanofi had an agreement with Eli Lilly to get OTC status for Cialis, something they haven’t managed.

So yes it’s going to be hard but no one said anything was easy. However what I do know (and others that work in the Pharma sector will also know) that this is a significantly derisked (as derisked as it can be) product that is entering phase 3 trials in a multi billion dollar industry .

Bring it on

Think We better let this board calm down before we adults begin to think logically and start a proper discussion

part 1 of phase 3 I meant

the rationale of buying at these prices is if you believe part 1 of phase 3 results will be good.

Yes not enough to get through both part 1 and part 2 of phase 3

If, however part 1 of phase 3 goes well, you won't see these prices. So the rationale of buying at these prices is if you believe phase 3 results will be good.

Anyone from here?

I will be.

To be successful in the future, Biotech leaders & their investors need to know that this is not optional. Failure to get the market access strategy right may well mean that your asset doesn’t ever get a chance to prove itself commercially. It may also mean that any potential acquirer puts a lower value on the asset because they know they may not be able to make up for lost time and effort. This is too important to ignore or get wrong, because patients’ lives & wellbeing are at stake. The most savvy Biotech companies are now realizing this and taking action now while they can still make a difference.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-biotech-needs-get-market-access-right-colin-wight/

excellent article which shows the importance of market access and engagement programmes to build value so no one can short change us once we near completion of phase 3

There were several prices mentioned but if I remember correctly, the sale forecasts that were done were based on $5 per dose, similar to the price that Viagra or it's generics have been priced at..

I still believe in it, something that may sound crazy given the sentiment right now but just because we are not aware of the work that is going on behind the scenes so to speak, we jump to conclusions that everything has come to a grinding stop.

At the end of the day the main thing is the Improvement in penile score... and that consists of a number of factors of which "hardness/firmness" is one element...
In order to achieve clinical efficacy, you need to achieve a P value of 0.05. i.e. there is a 95% chance the medication worked and 5% probability that it was "by chance" that the result was achieved...
In the mild group of patients. the P value was 0.0001. That means that there was a 0.01% probability that the results were achieved by chance., i.e. one in a ten thousand chance.
As the dose is increased, the work done to date shows increased blood flow in the penis so all the signs point to increased efficacy in the other groups.

So the signs are positive

The share price has continued to fall. I hope those that have researched this are proved right eventually.

well looks like they have acted on the error you pointed out.

CSD webpage seems to have been updated now with the 2 year shelf life.

Absolutely carnage on the markets today!!!

What's the nature of your question? (if you've asked one)

DCF is used to arrive at the NPV.
Diluting by 50 percent does not make sense if NPV increases by 50 percent
It’s that simple and I think that’s the point being made.

Let’s not get carried away here though.
We’re all speculating and at the moment we don’t know what the plan is.
There must be some plan in place one would think if the company has made the decision they did.