Re: Novavax (NVAX): Un Nuevo Comienzo
redplate sobre valoraciones. Parece que cambia algo si opinión sobre lo que vale la gripe. Y ojo a la frase "los ratones son unos pequeños bastardos mentirosos pero los hurones son completamente honestos":
I will clarify as my post is not clear. If flu I said worth 5-7 bucks, that is not add price, but rather the PPS gets to that range. Sorry I was not clear. For RSV add these dollars to that and get to 8-10 or so total. That is for the RSV maternal only as that is what is ongoing. The reason I am adding more for flu at this time is the 'expected' cross strain data that would give them a much stronger case for taking market share from traditional manufacturers. This is new data that was never seen with the VLP approach, where the data was 'just OK' and in no way distinguishing on performance. It was 'me too' and no real marketing / performance distinguishing. Now in a forward looking risk adjusted valuation the % of the pie is larger by a good bit. If the data plays out as in ferrets it also suggests it can get premium pricing in the flu space (not to be confused with RSV pricing, that's many times greater potential pricing). So yes a few things now model differently if (big word) the ferret data repeats in human ph1/2. Let me add that FDA has in the past allowed manufacturers to perform relatively small ph3 studies with HAI tiger based endpoints when the vaccine was seen as generally safe (egg based). If they had a ph3 trial chit chat with FDA and got such guidance a fairly short path to approval could also reduce the requirement to raise a lot more money and again change the calculated timeline. That hasn't happened yet, but results of a post ph2 meeting could be real good news about 90 days out.
So did I change my stance? Yes a bit, here is the math/rationale for it. It is contingent on the cross strain data being as strong as it was in ferrets, so there is risk in saying this is 100%, it is not. But I've done hundreds of studies in 'models' and thus far I can say this. Nice are lying little bastards, but ferrets are stone cold truth. So far in my work and others ferrets have been pretty spot on for flu efficacy. But strain specific responses in humans are often dominated by our personal flu history. Something called 'original antigenic sin' is a theory that says what you see first in life dominates what you see later. CDC data shows it just this week, kids over 8 were different than young kids. Why? Kids under 8 were naive and responded with new dominant clones. Kids over 8 had past history that dominated their responses. So the fish is not fried, but it is in the pan.
--
Aquí dice casi exactamente lo que comenté hace ya algún tiempo sobre el mejor escenario para los accionistas y la empresa, es decir, partner para la gripe y rsv en solitario. Me alegra ver que coincide con mi planteamiento:
NVAX has the conspiracy of time/money/opportunity as well. They have the product (opportunity) (we hope) but do not have the time/money on their side. The longer they can survive alone the better, unless they fall off a cliff. They can screw current shareholders and dilute again but I fear that means reverse as well. Too many shares already. Non dilutive money from grants and contracts are great, but ultimately slow you down if you work with NIH (ouch hope the program officers aren't reading I have an SBIR in the works) Gates is good money, little delay but a lot of time spent 'reporting'. But it keeps things alive and moving, just not fast. An infusion of 25-30 million on signing and milestones on steps for flu ( like file ph3 get ten finish ph3 get 10M and file BLA get 10 etc and a final FDA approve get 25 m more, and percent of sales. Now glubis free and cash moves RSV. That is the best case for shareholders as I see it. I think that is a low probability, I doubt Stan has the sense of where he is in negotiating strength or where he stands with shareholders. Not sure who but somebody has to negotiate for the good of shareholders