I read that cats on the farm tested positive for H1N1 also. Likely the bird eating cats passed it to the cows, or the farm hands, who handled one, or both animals? Whatever the method of transmission, it sounds like there's no cold hard conclusive evidence yet that this can't contaminate the food chain. I think he's right to be sounding the alarm with the USDA.
I seem to remember one of the Ashfield Engage US commercial job roles, when they were briefly advertised, pointed to some sort of dual reporting structure/line (the kind you'd imagine only a partnership or JV etc would necessitate)? But that was a long time ago. Yes, hopefully announcement that will benefit us all coming soon.
I can't rule out your guesswork Spaceman, with all due respect. Hopefully we will know soon!
Alternatively:
CEO - Richard Marsden
CFO - Joseph Colliver
CCO - Person from partner organisation.
Why have you ruled out a JV partner already having adequate financial and commercial people to plug into those spaces? I should think BP is over-run with such types. Why rule out Flic Gabbay as CEO, a role she is already experienced at? HG and RC are not the only people who have yet to update their out of date LI profiles. Maybe as continuing shareholders they see value in not rocking the boat before time? Dunno. All guesses.
Well, we shouldn't ignore the fact that SNG001 is a drug that will potentially form part of a future pandemic response, if it is approved for use. And that makes it a potentially valuable asset for UK Gov, in a way that other drugs (e.g. those for everyday gastric ailments) are not. Have you seen how much money they are ploughing into pandemic preparedness in collaboration with our friends at AZ? : https://www.gov.uk/government/news/astrazeneca-plans-650-million-investment-in-uk
Not to say that there is any link for SNG to that, but it's a timely reminder of what's at stake. If you have a drug that answers a call by UK Gov, I think you may have a different (elevated) niche status in their psyche? In their position, I wouldn't let potential slip away, I would do all within my power to protect it. I would want it to succeed. Of course it would need to be part of the 100 day response pillar (part of UK Gov;s's pandemic preparedness strategy), so likely to be swept up under the wing of a BP that can deliver under global pandemic pressure? If any of this is in play, 'partnership' may be more of a guess than a buy-out? Who knows.... As for Universal, it could be that the data was so tantalising they wanted more, finer detailed and longer study data?
Personally I don't think it's a possibility. We have a major shareholder invested long-term and parked at 28.2% holding (up from 27.1% in June 2022; the commitment has not waned, despite Sprinter, which in the grand scheme of things seems not to have been deterrent to accumulating to that power position). They are no passive punters. I suppose the question to ask is; is that something they would want? Have they sanctioned such an action in other companies they invested in, in the past? What would they gain (or moreover lose) from such a move?
It could be a positive curveball. That would be OK IMHO.
TP, I would wager a hefty sum that Ms Li’s business will go the way of quite a few other Dragons Dens offerings; lots of sparkle, but little substance. Everyone is a professional genius on LinkedIn it seems these days. But do they have staying power? …Time will tell.
And yet, still allowed to post here, ne'er banned no matter the content?
Strange one Aether.
I imagine the LSE Admins must know why that is....?
your last 3 posts get my 'seal' of approval, doc.dan.
i like it when you switch into idyllic, pastoral mode, it's so much more affable. it almost warms the ****les of my heart...
i bid you all a happy friday, may news come soon.
"Biotechnology in 2024
The biotechnology sector is not completely immune to the slings and arrows of broader investor sentiment, but there are some sector-specific reasons for optimism. Despite the recent rally, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index remains almost 20% below the peak it reached in 20211. This suggests significant upside potential for the index as a whole as we move through 2024 and beyond. This potential is underpinned by the sector’s accelerated pace of innovation, and heightened competitiveness and efficiency, following three years of consolidation and restructuring.
As the chart below demonstrates, the number of new drug approvals is currently high and on an upward trend. Importantly, many of these new therapies are for medical conditions that have previously been considered untreatable. This reflects the accelerating pace of innovation in biotechnology and other scientific fields, and hints at the scale of the opportunity that lies ahead for investors in the sector.
Meanwhile, the prospect of further merger & acquisition (M&A) activity looks strong. Patent expiries among the larger pharma players continues to be a pressing issue and they will continue to look towards the biotech sector for opportunities to plug the holes in their product shelves and pipelines. The continued implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) could amplify this demand for the more innovative biotech businesses with promising pipelines, as we explained here in a previous blog. Moreover, if interest rates decline, companies will find it easier to finance deals and product development. In turn, this could lead to a return of initial public offerings (IPOs), signalling an improved sentiment towards the sector."
https://www.schroders.com/en-gb/uk/intermediary/content/what-to-expect-from-biotech-in-2024/
"Biotech funding optimism rises as 44% predict recovery in 2024"
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/analyst-comment/biotech-funding-optimism-rises/#:~:text=Venture%20financing%20for%20US%2Dheadquartered,that%20year%20with%20inflated%20valuations.
A few observations:
"another global crisis on the horizon". Subjective. According to PwC, the deal totals for this Biotech industry in 2024 could range from $225 billion to $275 billion potentially allowing a biotech recovery this year. This robust activity is indicative of the sector's resilience and adaptability in the face of economic challenges and market fluctuations.
What we can say with confidence is that there is certainly another pandemic looming ahead of us, how far out is anyone's guess...
There is no regulation that stipulates that a CEO must update shareholders on a quarterly basis. If you're not happy with the lack of handholding don't invest. No one owes you anything.
We already have 20+ years development behind us - all of that data will not be 'unseen' by BP. The hard slog has already been done. What remains now is highly debateable. Which brings me to my next point;
There is NO guarantee that the company will prioritise a P2 over a lucrative deal if it finds it's way to the table sooner, despite what SS allegedly said a year ago. I would argue that all signs now are that they are doing something pretty secretive as we type...
The process and timelines are not surprising, and have not scared the horses at TFG HQ. If anything, it seems to have eagered them into accumulating ore since Sprinter, which is interesting.
I tend to agree; clarity should arrive soon.
Ah. I wasn't aware TD. I thought you were hinting at a GSK/SNG tie-up. Now that would be interesting...
"GSK's CEO".
A freudian slip, perhaps.... TD?
Such a theatrical poster is DocDan. I feel as if I am immersed in the pages of some distant high seas drama, like The Onedin Line...
20 years? 2 years?
You're surely having a joke Trinity. Or maybe a slip o' the tongue?
I see Sir SH has been busy. Let's hope for news soon.
Interesting concept; suggesting to remove a CEO for doing their job, without the backing or support of the main shareholder. How might you achieve your goal?
What a mess.