Member Info for pomander

Absolutely, I previously flagged this when everyone started saying the lowering of the bar would make it easier for Summ to gain FDA approval. Position of payers is critical, lets hope Summ's readouts are derived from far more comprehensive studies.

Interesting price action on Sarepta today - granted sector has been hammered across the board, but no early signs that their shareholders like the deal despite the lowly buy in price. Careful here, US HF's and arbitragers could make this quite volatile for a while, PI's generally get killed in these conditions - I know from experience !

Well said straightntrue and I suspect major shareholders who voted down the proposed remuneration policy shared your thinking. Anyone who claims anything is ''in the bag'' in the world of drug development is clueless and exposes them-self as to their true agenda.

@xtra Its trade able as you say, but I don't have the skill set to even make a stab at whether or not the Phase 11 results will be up to scratch. I can however see that the historical probability, which I accept is a guide, is about 6% to 8% for LOA (likelihood of final approval) and somewhere in the region of 24% for Phase 11 success, although I suspect the data is skewed here in Summ's favour and it is somewhat lower than 24%. We are still at proof of concept stage. I have been burnt before trying to guess binary outcomes, its a crap shot and the management quite rightly always believe in their drug prevailing. C-Diff, we can agree to differ, I could easily be wrong but the inability of Summ to do a deal which was the indicated preferred plan together with commentary that I have read supports a lack of interest from Big-Pharma. Margins, Govt interference & competition are all issues. I am sure they would have loved to have moved it on for as little as £100m and been able to fully fund DMD to Phase 11 results without giving up so much potential value so early on. Who knows, might get a wonderful announcement tomorrow !

@xtra - many have had a go before to re-arrange my nickname to produce a more insulting deviation. On the positive side my old mucker GMCC has found it very useful for the purpose of beating his wife at Scrabble. I just get very tired of lazy analysts work being regurgitated over and over again as if it were gospel. There is no mention in the piece of the R&D obligations assumed and no mention of the total industry apathy amongst the majors towards C-Diff drugs. The pre Phase 11 results milestones are simply a reflection of the perceived risk/rewards. Sarpeta are aware of the industry apathy towards to C-Diff, and of Summ's cash position. It was an opportunistic move, a cheap hedge against their drug and current patent dispute. $40m is peanuts, they have invested billions in their treatment for a much smaller addressable market. - some context needed here on what it takes to get a drug to market. I would not disagree with your conclusion, but I once wrote a paper entitled when doe the short term become the long term?

Repetitious and selective posting of the same analysts report despite its obvious shortcomings. Looks like the rampers as are back hard at work. The future milestones and royalties are all absolutely meaningless at this stage, they are not even fractionally funded. The key to real shareholder value remains is the Phase 11 results. The current share price, despite this wonderful collaboration deal is a reflection of the markets current view on the probability of a successful Phase 11 results. The cheap buy in price of k just $40 m for a potential blockbuster with almost zero competition is a a further reflection of the likelihood of successful Phase 11 results. Sarepta have simply bought a cheap hedge for its shareholders, against their own drug failing and put some skin in the game to be at the party should the Phase 11 results excel. Before the inevitable personal abuse begins, this is not negative, it is the reality.

What assets are you referring to ? What use is Sarepta's clinical data to Summ ?

I suspect there will be some US HF's taking positions to arbitrage Sarepta / Summ.

strip paint

24/7

Old news and maybe nonsense anyway, especially if there are covenants attached to the milestone on how the $40 maybe spent. Not sure Sarepta will to keen to fund Summ's C-Diff program The analyst don't yet know the details of the collaberationon which to base such comments. Lazy work.

Events have proven it because they gave away a huge amount of potential value for not much in return, reflecting both a bad deal and the inherent risk of the the drug failing Phase 11 tests. - you seem to be suggesting they had a choice between a C-Diff deal and the Sarepta deal - odd that because its a complete reversal of your previous stance. You never short, but your guru is JM - odd that You also seem to be confused about shorting versus investing - there are many that invest in short positions, entire funds are dedicated to it and there are many long/short funds. Simon Cawkwell, a close friend and colleague of your guru JM is also well known for taking short positions. Are you really suggesting that you can not claim to be an investor if you take short positions. You seem to be imposing your own morality into the equation. I would suggest that it is deal, once it had been properly digested that caused the share price to fall back - were you not one of those shouting for £3.90, I also seem to remember you referring to JM's £3 price target is that before or after the fall back? I think you need to get your stories properly aligned.

There was no alternative, I have made that very clear, they exhausted all other possibilities.It was clearly put together at the eleventh hour. Its $40m better spent on a competitor buy-in to hedge their own program than on their own drug. Those that were espousing a C-Diff deal and rubbishing me in the process should be questioning why it has not happened. The mkt now seems to allocating no value to C-Diff. If you think it is a good deal - would Summ have done it in your opinion if it had $ 50m on its own balance sheet ? Ollieh uses meaningless generic phrases like Sarepta will do the heavy lifting. They are not a haulage company, they will exert control/influence as US corporations do for their own institutional investors. If that aligns nicely with Summ's shareholders best interest, then all is fine and dandy.

Ollieh- you just don't get it, there was no alternative, Summ were backed into a corner as they were running on fumes. There is awful lot of hypocrisy on here, pre the deal everyone was expecting and hoping for a C-Diff deal in line with noises coming out from the BOD. It was considered by the herd as the best way forward as it best protected the much greater value in the DMD program and left both 100% of that potential value and full control over the program in the hands of Summ. My view is that Sarepta have bought a very cheap hedge against their own program collapsing by opportunistically exploiting Summ's financial weakness.

My target of 50-75 p was probably much closer of happening than we will ever know, and who knows how the future will pan out. Phase 11 results are binary. Surely its a given that there will be better returns if the Science prevails - you seem to be suggesting that you know the Science will prevail - that's quite a stance to take. Are you a scientist with a professional background in this disease? I note you did not answer my simple question.

Your sanctimonious response to Nicko included the phrase ''if you know AIM you knew that was going to happen and may drop more.'' I don't recall hearing you say that in real time. Since only you knew the SP would drop I presume you took a short position - after all that's money for old rope in your book. Must be wonderful looking down on the AIM goldfishes as a superior being .

@GMCC As I asked, who wrote the article ? best to know the source before posting and relying on it. Seeking Alpha is full of articles authored by people with vested interesst and subjective views - that's the US for you, just as Sarepta's CEO spoke about possible collaborations in the DMD space ahead of the deal which must have already been in place, just awaiting final sign-off. - was that for his HF chums to make some money? Indeed, 2 in play but C-Diff struggling (nothing wrong with ridinilazole as such, just universal industry indifference to new C.diff treatments). and we all know the development risks associated with a DMD drug. I will ask you a simple question, if Summ had $ 50m on its balance sheet - would it have done the Sarepta deal ? You must be a tad disappointed that Summ has given up so much potential value having been forced to a deal prematurely because of its cash position.

I thought Summit was also listed on Nasdaq ?

The problem I have with the Q/A is that the details of the collaboration are unknown, so she is framing answers form a vacuous position. Can we assume that any of the $40m is available to fund C-Diff. It would be somewhat odd if Sarepta did not place a restriction on this. The interview also makes no reference to the substantial R&D costs. She also fails to mention that the future milestones are unfunded currently. In any even,t if the P2 results are exemplary, this will be taken out and Sarepta will be in pole position. Summ shareholders will do very well, although not as well as they would have, had Summ been able to fund it by way of a C-Diff deal.

seeking alpha - useful but if your follow its releases you will know it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi who wrote it anyway? do you know ?