Member Info for pomander

but its 80 p from a very low base for many - it was trading up to £3.80 several years ago so not everyone is lucky enough to have bought in recently and be in profit. you either try and trade bio stocks which is bloody difficult, or as along term investor you accept the inherent drug development risks and binary outcomes. Really you should a diversify your portfolio to try to mitigate this risk - look at the major US Bio HF's- they often hold hundreds of stocks across the sector. More a question of the one big winner in every twenty or more.

Its a great deal for DMD sufferers, its a good deal in that it keeps the vulture funds at bay but in terms of potential value given up, its not a great deal but that's because of the huge risks and costs attached to developing a successful DMD cure. The market is telling us that at the moment, unlike this board. I am sure the BOD has done its very best to monetise value in the C-Diff program and will continue to do.

EP In terms of your numbers, on the downside there will be an issue with payers being able to meet the costs in some of the territories and health insurers may have something to say. The addressable market will also inevitably be much lower than the total sufferers, as is always the case for a number of reasons. On the upside, your numbers are way too low if Summ achieves exemplary Phase 11 results. They will get blown out of the water - but the $40m is the best current indicator of the perceived risk of that not happening. Its a small buy in for a potential blockbuster. I would not be too exercised by the $500 m milestones, they have most likely been set to match the projected costs Summ will incur to meet its R&D obligations post Phase 11, if we get there. They will be triggered by various events during that part of the pipeline - we don't know the detail and in any event it is not even funded at this stage so is just dressing. Could be 3/4 years away, so Sarepata will have time for their hedge to play out whilst it continues with its own drug and fights the Biomarin patent issue. C-diff appears to have diminished in value from $200 m to several hundred thousands now - I don't see any interest in it from big-pharma yet, and certainly not pre Phase 111 results. Sarepta will probably have a covenant to stop its milestones being used to fund its development so whilst the search for a deal will inevitably continue I suspect the program may well be put on hold.

@stickler I have not said it was a bad deal, it was a necessity because Summ was running on fumes and they could not release any value in the C-Diff program in time. Had they been able to do so, Summ could have retained 100% of worldwide rights and potentially become a very expensive and attractive target in 2017/18 on the back of exemplary Phase 11 results, particularly if ezondy falls away or payers dig in $40 m probably fairly reflects the risk/reward of getting a DMD drug at this early stage to final approval. Sarepta has no profits from the deal, not sure how you have reached that conclusion, it has no income stream. It will have to rely on its shareholders and institutions to fund the $500m of future milestones, if we even get there. At today's level of circa 10p in old money we are still 80% below the previous high from a few years back now. The market would seem not to agree with the consensus on this board at the moment, and that is because despite funding now being in place it still recognises that the downside risks remain significant that Summ will get through Phase 11, let alone to final approval. The recent rise is a relief rally on the back of funding, and whilst that allows the drug to be progressed to Phase 11 it is not positively correlated to an improved likelihood of clinical success. This is an incredibly difficult disease to find a cure for, billions have been spent to date so the market is understandably wary. I hope the Phase 11 results will change that.

Its dollars and would be worth a lot more than 10x which is why $40 m is a cheap hedge fro Sarepta.

Ego I can only look at events and form my opinion from them, rightly or wrongly, but as my opinion does not alwayus fit the consensus I am slaughtered for it. If there were interest, surely a deal would have been done to fund DMD by releasing the value in C-Diff allowing Summ to retain 100% of worldwide rights. I am a little surprised by your stance as for several months now the consensus of the herd on here was that a deal would be done on C-Diff to fund the more valuable DMD program. I was probably the only person pointing out that this maybe more difficult than expected. Ok, there is another $22m to come but it will all be eaten up on R&D costs to get this through P2, but this in itself does not add shareholder value unless the P2 readouts meet their objectives. It is still early stage which is why Sarepta has put in place a modest hedge of $40m against a drug that could generate billion dollar annual revenues even ex US. If the readouts are exemplary Sarepta will probably get taken out itself. I don't know if there are any restrictions on the deployment of the $40m - not sure Sarepta would like to see it being spent on the C-Diff program and poptentially leaving the DMD underfunded. I would not be surprised if the C-Diff was put on hold now, but we shall see. It was a necessary deal, but Summ was backed into a corner as cash was running down. Look the important thing is the program is funded to go on, and hopefully find a cure for the disease.

Ollieh - do you ever comment of on the facts or present an argument to support your view. Or do you just insult people who are not part of the heard.

You may have halved the development costs, but they are small in relation to the ex US market that has been given up. The point is Sarepta have effectively got ex US for $40m. If the P2 readouts are stellar, Summ could have named its price - it still can for the US, so fingers crossed. There is plenty of stuff on C-Diff on the internet. As I said the fact that the drug industry/big pharma is showing no interest is itself an ominous sign! Big Pharma is much more interested in selling you drugs from which they can make a handsome profit, such as those marketed for cancer, heart disease, arthritis, diabetes, depression, Alzheimer's and erectile dysfunction.

Oddmoney - You have mis-quoted me -I said there was ''industry''indifference to C-Diff drugs, which is quite different to government involvement. The fact that Summ has seemingly been unable to attract any interest and the fact that Government incentives are being considered support my view of general industry indifference towards C-Diff. Mr Edwards had made it clear that his preference was to do a deal on C-Diff and that was the consensus on here, although I did in the face of vitriolic abuse, try to highlight the potential difficulties. Big-pharma pulled their R&D some time time ago in this arena, despite knowing a problem would arise eventually, because the risk/rewards just do not stack up. Government intervention inevitably erodes pricing power and margins, plus there are several competing drugs. It's a very sad reflection of today's world but they would rather spend their money on life style drugs and finding a cure for baldness. The P2 readouts will decide Summ's future, its magnificent to be an able to get there , especially for the sufferers, I just wish it could have been under a better arrangement but when your cash runs down you no longer hold all the chips.If P2 disappoints, the additional milestones will never kick in so as well being unfunded they are pretty irrelevant at this stage in my book.

In my view zero chance of a C.diff deal (nothing wrong with ridinilazole , just universal industry indifference to new C.diff treatments). Summ were backed into a corner. Ego - the €500m of future milestones will only be triggered by a series of events, they are not scheduled payments and they are of course not fully funded yet. I also believe they will pretty closely match the expenses Summ will need to incur to meet its obligations under the R&D cost sharing arrangements with Sarepta. So my read is that Sarepta give with one hand and take back with the other. Remember Sarepta have spent billions developing their drug - Summ are still relatively early stage. My point is that it is great pity that Summ could not raise the funding to get through P2 for DMD from another source, preferably the sale of ist C-Diff program. If the clinical readouts are stellar from P2 this would have left Summ in a superb position, being in full control of the worldwide interests for the drug and being able to open an auction for them worldwide or negotiating a much better license deal. As it is now more likely Sarepta will be taken out for the European rights if P2 results are indeed stellar. Right now it is very much a relief rally on the back of funding which I understand was necessary to keep Summ alive, but I still believe Sarepta has the better of this deal. GMCC is spot on though, the outcome will be determined by the Science-which is why as a long term investor, albeit a minor one, I would have preferred funding from another source.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/sarepta-may-be-the-real-winner-from-partnership-that-lifted-summit-therapeutics-stock-50-2016-10-04?siteid=yhoof2 One of the professionals trolly dolly likes to listen to.

good point Dibs61 - I guess Sarepta would not pay for those just yet as risk/reward pre P2 would be prohibitively costly. Summ will have to do a deal for US at some point, it has no resources to commercialise a drug on its own, but as you say it has freedom to negotiate best deal possible.

no point in posting yesterday - just a sea of traders, some don't even know what Summ does so best to let them have their day in the sun. If you are happy with deal that's up to you - I just give my view, and I feel Sarepta have muscled in on the cheap here

As a overview , putting the funding in place best protects the DMD sufferers which is paramount, but this is a deal which I believe Summit had no alternative but to take as their C-Diff programme has not attracted the interest hoped for to provide the funding source for the DMD P2. If P2 produces superb readouts in 2017/18 pre this deal, it would left Summit in a great position, with the most likely outcome being an outright sale of the business or a license agreemenet on much better terms. For circa $ 40 m, it has given up a huge and potentially valuable interest in ezutromid. Further, any future takeover will now be far more likely of Sarepta than Summ. For its part Sarepta has bought into the competition very cheaply. The future milestones ($500m), which still have to be funded anyway post P2 readouts, (Sarepta does not have that cash so it is a pretty hollow commitment), appear to me like Sarepta will be giving with one hand and taking back with the other as Summ will need the milestone payments to fund its commitment to the 45%/55% split of R&D expense which will be huge. The key will be the P2 readouts, I think the market will slowly recognise this and the share price will adjust accordingly. Sarepta have a nice $40 million hedge in place and Summ have given up a chunk of the crown jewels. Disappointing outcome after so many years of R&D but cash is king at the end of the day.

It was a real kick in the teeth, just as the company cleared its debt and received a fairly favourable outcome in terms of the quantum of fine for the lawsuit. Now looks possible that the core landline billing service which was expected to run down over the next five years or so will be culled, at least in its present form. Future is uncertain hence the SP action I think

I am not so sure about that - core business was going to fund dividends now debt free now looks like rather than running down over the 5 years or so will likely disappear altogether next year. Management need to find alternative revenue steams and have been trying to for some time but without any material success. Highlights the risks of anything highly Govt regulated.

The odd thing about JG email is that he referred to the Recordati presentation as likely being based on old numbers and yet it is more recent than the numbers pitched by Recordati to secure the licence back in 2014. It would appear that R have downgraded their original forecasts, perhaps the original were inflated to secure the licence which is not all bad as it shows how keen R were to get the licence- we don't know if there was competition for it. I am take comfort in Bignose's comments, particularly as he is the only one of us to actually have sat down with JG. Can someone let SG know that RP is not without value because it has no income - investments have value?

Do something - yes, wind it up ?

Chri - that's a good point. I don't know the quantum of tax losses but I think the following is relevant. Where a UK target company with trading losses is acquired (whether directly or by the acquisition of its immediate or ultimate parent company), it may use those losses against its own future trading profits provided there has been no 3 years after the date of acquisition. If SER wre to be a target of another oil company, that company must be profitable such that it can absorb the losses. A new company is probably unlikley to produce any significant profits for several years. This may diminish the value of these losses to a potentail acquirer, but I don't know the detail.

Problem is SER is not a particularly clean shell not least because it already has thousands of very unhappy shareholders. A new investor will not put in his money to appease shareholders by way of providing a return to them. They will either have to accept a massive dilution or stump up money themselves and get back on the merry go round of throwing more good money after bad. Anyone serious about moving into this sector would better advised to simply incorporate their own company- SER has nothing to offer and even its prospects of being able to re-list must be highly questionable. Halo man will not answer your question ebcause he has no answer