Member Info for pomander

As if I would Alq- perhaps you are correct, but I don't attach too much significance to the FS write down and the adjustment to the deal terms is exactly what I would expect any well run business to negotiate given the delays whatever the original projections pitched for the license.. I have not seen Recordati's thosel projections and I suspect nor have you, although I guess they will be similarly categorised as crayon and glitter projections - which must be a pharma phrase as I have not comer across it before. I place more weight on Recordati remaining and being remarkably patient given the issues and loss of exclusivity, maybe that is wishful thinking on my part but they have not walked despite your firm belief that they would do so. I think too much focus is now being been attached to just the E5 launch - its a big wide world out there.

Better than Alq Bignose ? Surely not. I know he is very confident on the commercial opportunity and that Recordati share a similar view.

SS - maybe that is the driver for the recent price action/ volume tick up

I will second that - I have tried to find any link to AZN and GSK without success - where is the source of the rumour please ?

Bignose- I am not so sure about a leak, one thing JG is good at is withholding information ! I took the view from the last announcement that conditions for the amended licence had been been met and it was a done deal subject to the legal paperwork - although I am not dumb enough to believe any deal is done until it is over the line. If there is any big-pharma interest at these levels it could write off the entire stake and it would be a drop in the ocean for its P/L. The big question is - what is the commercial potential for Fortacin- that I don't know.

Pikey -Bignose may well be sniffing in the right direction, he usually does, but I must admit I found yesterdays 20m volume difficult to understand so am more confused by todays price action and volume. The amended licence terms and anticipated consummation thereof were announced sometime ago, so why no reaction at that time? Indeed volumes were as low as ever, sometimes just 2m against daily average of circa 9m following that news. I am still very much of the view that ' if' , and not everyone does, you buy into the commercial opportunity that Fortacin presents, particularly for the US market that its ticks a lot of boxes for a takeover target - in the bigger scheme of things, anyone buying at these levels is getting in very cheap on a risk/reward scenario and with pretty limited downside. This would also seem consistent with post UK launch volumes (3 billion in a couple of weeks, 650m in a day) which we are still massively short of achieving. It is also encouraging that such relatively small volumes have driven significant price action over the last 2 days. Surely a EU5 territory launch plus mention of HK launch should create at least similar price action / volumes to a low key UK launch the sole purpose of which was to secure the regulatory approval. Perhaps the protection of the approval was the trigger for a stake to be built, as without that there is no business. This of course is just a theory and for those that don't understand the word theory, before they start throwing their toys out of the pram I suggest they consult their Oxford Dictionaries for Children.

Free Money - JM is a dollar billionaire so he does not need to sell Summ to fund other activities. He owns circa 30,000 rental units throughout Germany - I suspect his rent roll is quite impressive. He shrewdly sold into the rise ahead of the US listing and I suspect his resignation as Chairman maybe linked to regulatory issues rather than Summ specific - but could be incorrect. Drug discovery is by its very nature a series of binary events, you may go back and forth with the FDA but eventually you either get approval or the dreaded complete response letter.

Ollie - that pretty much applies to any pharma developing a drug(s) with blockbuster potential- sadly the statistics are against you but that does mean one or both may eventually prevail. The specialist US bio tech funds/ hedge funds would be all over this if they shared that view- to date they are not, but that may change. Biggest damp squib of a blast off though - made me chuckle!

Purely a function of liquidity - as liquidity dries up the spread widens. Nought to worry about- MM's seek to balance their book at the end of every trading day.

You maybe right, but I am no so sure it was priced in- we knew that the landline billing business would run-off over a number of years but this seems to have come out of left field. The recent rise have been due to settlement on the law suit. I think you are right, need to establish cash generative businesses in other areas pretty quickly or raise some money.

I don't believe the Sarepta deal has directly solved any problems for funding C-Diff's progression. I find it inconceivable that Sarepta would pay over $22m and allow it to be expended on furthering the C-Diff program. The value of the Sarepta deal is that Summ no longer has to raise funds, from whatever source, to fund two programs, so if it is able to raise money from whatever source in the Summer, it can be allocated entirely to C-Diff should management decide to do so. I remain concerned about Summ's inability to do deal and get a license agreemenet in place, but perhaps that will only come post P3 which of course is not consistent with the consensus on here that success at P3 is a done deal. There is also still a very long way to go and further regulatory requirements to meet post P3 to get a drug to market and it is a very expensive process. I am not sure this is being considered by many. $100m to progress C-Diff trials - I think you are getting your noughts mixed up.

Don't follow your logic - we were discussing C-Diff and then you throw in DMD. You are missing the point , Big-pharma are not concerned about cost of completing P3 trials - it is the return from a C-Diff drug/new antibiotic that is the concern & factors such as government intervention. If the cost are so negligible and the commercial prospects so huge why no no deal? You seem to be arguing against yourself.

THe AZ deal was distressed, AZ was happy to take the money to shore up funds for its increasing focus on cancer. Merck also bought Cubist in 2014 - a market leader in antibiotic development. I have never suggested Pharma would have to spend millions and billions to complete P3, that is a completely fictitious statement. The millions and billions mentioned on here have normally been in connection with a price tag for the C-Diff business.

Explain then why no Big Pharma interest - surely they would be chomping at the bit to acquire or partner Summ with a narrow spectrum agent and best in class C-Diff drug? Summ cannot bring it to market so why no deal?

You are missing my point- I have said RDZ is a perfectly good drug , but there is still very little interest from Big-Pharma in developing new antibiotics, for sound commercial reasons - this is widely known and not my view. If 3 people report a post it is removed automatically, so it used as a tactical ploy by rampers who do not wish to be challenged.

I don't need to tell Glynn, I am sure he can read a set of accounts and is fully aware of Sarepta's financial standing. I made reference only to the future milestones which will be used by Summ to meet its 50% share of the development costs. The $22m is fully funded and never have I said any different. Sure Sarepta may raise future funds post P2 or in my view more likely be taken over but you have no idea on what terms those events might happen on. $75 million - gross sales not bottom line and Sarepta drug is a very expensive to produce. Against billions invested that it not particularly compelling. I would also beware analysts talking up their own book. Very good at that in the US. My post were removed because I have dared to post against the herd and they can not deal with that so they report- its easier to push a button.

Sarepta currently has no funds to meet future milestones nor development costs. Perhaps you know how the money will be raised and would like to share it with everyone? If most biotech investment is reliant on the drugs actually working - how on earth do companies raise money pre P1 and why do pharma investors lose millions year on year? Your comments make no sense because all you want to do is humiliate me but in doing so you miss the point. I have not posted any false information and it is you that is posting the false information by claiming that I have done so.

Market abuse - what world do you live in - go back to making a fortune in ollies and doubling your money in Summ - seems you are a really smart guy, so why worry about my b views ? Sorry, no recommend from me.

Under the so called collaboration agreement, anyone that believes that the milestones funds can be allocated to the C-Diff program, I fear will be very disappointed. Sarepta holds the balance of power as does the licensee in almost all licence agreements as they are stumping up the cash. That will be a strictly controlled process and Sarepta will be very involved. Richard Pye may well have said that DMD milestone payment " would help maintain development pace on both our programmes but that is far from saying that the Sarepta milestones could be allocated to the C-Diff program. It is not however, a technically inaccurate statement as it means any cash the company had left on its own account and any future funds raised or grants could be allocated solely to the C-Diff program. The future milestones under the collaboration are pretty meaningless as they are dependent upon P2 approval and most likely many other conditions being met which we are not privy to. Had Summ been able to off load C-Diff and fund DMD through P2 I suspect it would be in a much stronger position, but that is the past now. Sorry to disappoint but I had a few SUMM shares in my SIPP.

ego- I really must correct you - I have not stated there is no interest in RDZ but I have stated that Big Pharma is showing little interest in developing new antibiotics and many have exited the space altogether, a good example being AstraZeneca when it sold its antibiotics business to Pfizer Inc. This is not my view, it is a fact and that is why the likes of Jim O'Neill have been calling for government initiatives to tackle this problem, I have also stated that RDZ was a perfectly good drug. If you choose to ignore the wider trends within the pharma sector up to you, but others may wish to consider it and form their own view. Presenting a different view is not bullying and as for market abuse I think you must have started the weekend early.