# Biotechs - Are they the flavour for 2007?



## Snakey (16 January 2007)

Since the start of the year quite a few biotech companies have taken off NAL, BPO, SOM, PNO just to name a few. Whats going on and has any one have any ideas why this is happening? Last year alot of Biotechs got hammered as the money went across to mining. Now there alot of over inflated mining stocks and some very cheap bio stocks. Any thoughts????


----------



## mb1 (16 January 2007)

*Re: Biotechs - Are they the flavour for 2007*

Yes agree. Looking very promising.

NAL two announcements today regarding patents.


----------



## Ken (16 January 2007)

*Re: Biotechs - Are they the flavour for 2007*

BTC-

if you dont think you can pick a winner invest in a company that has some spread.


----------



## Joe Blow (16 January 2007)

*Re: Biotechs - Are they the flavour for 2007*

I sincerely hope that this thread is not going to become a vehicle for every man and his dog to ramp their favourite biotech stock.


----------



## mb1 (16 January 2007)

Not at all. 
the bio tech is early stages of becoming exciting


----------



## Snakey (17 January 2007)

mb1 said:
			
		

> Not at all.
> the bio tech is early stages of becoming exciting




I agree 
Is there any mining people that are concentrating on biotechs now?
I know a few yuppies in the know are talking are talking about this subject.
dotcoms.....minners....biotechs?????


----------



## Novski (17 January 2007)

Snakey, are you seeing how it comes off the tongue or what kind of tune it brings to the ear...

I'd say yuppies would be quite attracted to biotechs and it's time for them to put their super somewhere too.


----------



## rub92me (17 January 2007)

Funding has been challenging in the past and the regulatory landscape, patent issues, etc. continue to make it hard for the wouldbe investor to put a price on many of the micro and small caps. I personally stay clear of any of the early-stage biotechs as a long term investment. A bit of research will give you a handful of solid performers in this sector though that have potential for good gains and look relatively cheap on a global basis.


----------



## Snakey (17 January 2007)

Novski said:
			
		

> Snakey, are you seeing how it comes off the tongue or what kind of tune it brings to the ear...
> 
> I'd say yuppies would be quite attracted to biotechs and it's time for them to put their super somewhere too.




yeah what ever....i am just trying to get a feel from others on this question because if i have any support on this theory then there might be something in it that we can all use. Do others think miners are over inflated in general?
the big knobs are the movers and shakers on the market and have the most power in general. I like to be one step ahead of the market and to establish an answer to this question early. this would be an advantage on the market.
I am the first to admit biotechs are crap as investments in general..but if they are going to make me money i dont give a sh*t. i am here to make money not friends with types of securities. sure i made a good money off miners last year. but this year i want to get in early to make the best money i can. obviously biotechs in the very last stages of devolopment would be ideal to invest in... if this the way to go. come on people lets debate this...


----------



## Sean K (17 January 2007)

I have been getting the general perception that biotechs are starting to run a little but I have no stats to back this up. 

I too agree that one day, the mining cycle will come to a close, but when that occurs is up for debate also. Some are saying it's peaked, others are saying Chindia will drive it for another 5-10 years....Much might depend in the short term of US housing health.

There may be upside in biotechs and some more speculative money may flow in. Certainly, anything that promises a 'cure' for anything is bound to get a lot of attention.....

I'm with you Snakey, that it is having a vision to see the next big thing that is where the real money is made. If you had have bought every uranium explorer just 2 years ago, you'd be a very rich person! 

Will be interesting to see how it pans out.


----------



## Ken (17 January 2007)

I have only known the asx when miners have been booming.

If a trend to sell speculative miners occurs a lot of us could be in trouble.

The biotech sector has looked pretty poor from what I have seen.

I find it hard to read through all the presentations and pick 1 out of 400 nhope for the best.

Westpac Broking recommends BTC as exposure to a group of up and coming biotechnology stocks. In theory if they are experts and investing in the sector then I trust them over my judgement, trying to find a winning bunch of companies.

They have an exposure to listed asx companies and stakes in those that are not yet listed.

If this is the next phase of speculative money, BTC is the only biotechnology investment group that I have found.


----------



## danc (17 January 2007)

some that snakey mentioned take my fancy chart wise only on day week and month charts and coming out of btms on vol are;SOM NAL PNO.


----------



## Sean K (17 January 2007)

*Re: Biotechs - Are they the flavour for 2007*



			
				Joe Blow said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope that this thread is not going to become a vehicle for every man and his dog to ramp their favourite biotech stock.



Ladies and Gents,

Just a reminder that this thread is not about individual stocks but the industry in general.

If you want to nominate a stock, perhaps it requires some more detailed analysis. This hasn't got out of hand yet, but I too can see this turning into a situation where people just start listing a series of biotechs with no analysis, and at best vague generalisations about their potential.

Cheers,
Kennas


----------



## constable (17 January 2007)

Yes its been hard to find a mining stock that hasn't been belted out of the park already. I guess traders /investors are now looking for other areas where value for money can be found.


----------



## Kauri (17 January 2007)

constable said:
			
		

> Yes its been hard to find a mining stock that hasn't been belted out of the park already. I guess traders /investors are now looking for other areas where value for money can be found.




Yes, most mining minnows seem to have had their day in the sun, from memory I think the micro-bio sector was last ..umm... given a lot of attention, in the early stages of the 2002/2003 rally, so I guess they are about due again. As with the mining minnows, the vol in the prior weeks gives a possible inkling of things to come...... Both charts below are of SOM.


----------



## dhukka (17 January 2007)

Snakey said:
			
		

> Since the start of the year quite a few biotech companies have taken off NAL, BPO, SOM, PNO just to name a few. Whats going on and has any one have any ideas why this is happening? Last year alot of Biotechs got hammered as the money went across to mining. Now there alot of over inflated mining stocks and some very cheap bio stocks. Any thoughts????




Snakey could you name a few bio stocks that you consider cheap and how you value them to come up with your conclusion?

If speculative money is now being rotated from mining stocks that don't produce anything or make money into biotech's that are all potential but don't have any products and that therefore that also don't make any money I think that gives you some indication that this market may not have much further to run. 

There has also been been a noticeable shift into large cap companies with low risk earnings or attractive yields or both such as BXB, TLS, NWS, TAH, WES by the smart money.


----------



## dhukka (17 January 2007)

Ken said:
			
		

> I have only known the asx when miners have been booming.
> 
> If a trend to sell speculative miners occurs a lot of us could be in trouble.




Ken if that's the case you're in a very dangerous position as you haven't seen how quickly positions can get wiped out. Just a word of advice from someone who had a front row seat during the tech wreck, make no mistake the music will stop for speculative mining companies, just make sure you don't get caught without a chair.


----------



## Moneybags (17 January 2007)

constable said:
			
		

> Yes its been hard to find a mining stock that hasn't been belted out of the park already. I guess traders /investors are now looking for other areas where value for money can be found.




When I first joined ASF ( April ) nearly every thread on the board was a mining stock. I have noticed the word biotech popping up more & more in recent times but couldn't name more than a couple of stocks in that sector.

Kauris chart shows SOM very clearly moving up in 2007 ( nice job ).........perhaps coincidentally as Copper, Gold, & oil continue to come off and Zinc takes a hit.........who knows. Has sentiment started to change in the mining sector or is it day traders looking for quick profits? Or could it just be, as Kauri has alluded to in his posts in the "riding the ramps " thread.

Interesting stuff all the same.

Time will tell.

MB


----------



## BraceFace (22 January 2007)

Metabolic Pharmaceuticals (MBP) and Ventracor (VCR) are two "bio-tech" companies that had underwhelming 2006's but have surged since December.

See the individual threads on these companies for more info.

Solbec Pharmaceuticals (SBP) also underperformed last year and has rallied in recent weeks without major announcements. 

I agree with previous posters - this sector of the market does appear to be picking up more attention nowadays.


Now I'd just like to see a rally on Psvida (PSD)......


----------



## silence (22 January 2007)

I'd like to see something other than mining become the flavour. I'm hoping for phosphagenics (POH) to take off - countless good announcements seem to do nothing to the price though.


----------



## Fab (22 January 2007)

silence said:
			
		

> I'd like to see something other than mining become the flavour. I'm hoping for phosphagenics (POH) to take off - countless good announcements seem to do nothing to the price though.



RBY is the same


----------



## chops_a_must (26 January 2007)

Running pretty hard right now.


----------



## ozewolf (26 January 2007)

Snakey said:
			
		

> Since the start of the year quite a few biotech companies have taken off NAL, BPO, SOM, PNO just to name a few. Whats going on and has any one have any ideas why this is happening? Last year alot of Biotechs got hammered as the money went across to mining. Now there alot of over inflated mining stocks and some very cheap bio stocks. Any thoughts????




Biotechs haven't been performing for some time... 
Never really understood why Bios have been hit so hard, mind you that there 
are some very promising companies out there...


----------



## reece55 (26 January 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Running pretty hard right now.




Chops

XHJ is only healthcare stocks in the ASX 200 - only 10 stocks. The biotechs we are referring to here are mostly microcaps, so that graph really doesn't mean much in the context of this discussion. Also note that the majority of the index is taken up by CSL as it is weighted by market cap - no crap its moved up, CSL has gone mental in the last 2 years!!!!

If you were to paint a picture of the microcaps, I would think you would find that in the last couple of years there has been quite a large decline, with a recovery in the last couple of months in 06 and 07. 

Cheers


----------



## chops_a_must (26 January 2007)

reece55 said:
			
		

> Chops
> 
> XHJ is only healthcare stocks in the ASX 200 - only 10 stocks. The biotechs we are referring to here are mostly microcaps, so that graph really doesn't mean much in the context of this discussion. Also note that the majority of the index is taken up by CSL as it is weighted by market cap - no crap its moved up, CSL has gone mental in the last 2 years!!!!
> 
> Cheers



I'm well aware of this. It's just the only indicator I could find that was really remotely linked to the sector.


----------



## Jay-684 (27 January 2007)

Dont know if any of you saw it, but there was an article on the Biotech sector in the Money section of the paper on Wednesday (Sydney).

It states average annual returns since 1986 have been 25.5% with the last three years receiving returns of 40%+! Is this mainly due to CSL?

CSL, Peptech, BIOTA and SIRTEX are listed as recommendations by the author as having a 'promising future'

any thoughts?


----------



## chansw (27 January 2007)

Jay-684 said:
			
		

> Dont know if any of you saw it, but there was an article on the Biotech sector in the Money section of the paper on Wednesday (Sydney).



Here is the article

http://www.smh.com.au/news/investment/a-wild-ride-that-can-pay-off/2007/01/22/1169330826278.html?page=fullpage

*A wild ride that can pay off*

Martin Roth
January 24, 2007

The pharmaceutical, biotech and life science sector has been one of the sharemarket's star performers.

As bird flu fears swept Europe and North America during 2005 and 2006, a small Melbourne biotechnology company was abruptly thrust into the spotlight. The firm was Biota Holdings, developer of the anti-flu drug Relenza, one of only two anti-virals that had proved effective in combating the lethal H5N1 strain of the bird flu (the other was Roche Holding's Tamiflu).

Relenza, described by immunologist Sir Gustav Nossal as "one of the greatest Australian research inventions", is in demand around the world. The US Government plans a $2 billion pandemic anti-viral stockpile, with Relenza expected to be responsible for up to 20 per cent of this. Last November, Britain's famed Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences, in a joint report, called on the British government also to begin stockpiling the drug.

It is an Australian success story, another example of how this country so often punches above its weight in global medical research. Unfortunately, the Relenza story also illustrates why many investors shy away from biotech and pharmaceutical shares.

In August 2005, investors caught a whiff of Relenza's potential and Biota's shares began to soar. From about 50 cents at the beginning of the month, they touched $2.75 in mid-October before falling as low as $1.35 a month later. Occasional double-digit percentage price rises or falls within a single day were a phenomenon.

Meanwhile, Biota Holdings has not reported a profit since its June 2000 financial year, it does not pay dividends and it is engaged in litigation against Relenza's distributor, GlaxoSmithKline, for allegedly not promoting the drug vigorously. The case will not go to trial until next year and the outcome is, of course, uncertain.

The result of all this is many private share buyers cast their eyes over companies such as Biota, and even over market heavyweights such as CSL, and decide biotech and pharmaceutical stocks are best left to investment professionals or short-term traders. That is a shame, for the stocks have been stellar long-term performers.

In January, Commsec released a market analysis revealing that in the 21 years to 2006, the pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and life sciences sector was the best performing of the 24 Australian Stock Exchange industry groups, with a remarkable average annual gain of 25.5 per cent (capital gain plus dividends), compared with 14.1 per cent for the broader market. Second was the media industry group with a 23.8 per cent return, followed by retailing with 21.8 per cent.

Craig James, chief equities economist for Commsec, says much of the performance came from the outstanding accomplishments of pharmaceuticals and blood products company CSL, formerly Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, which was floated in 1994 at $2.40 a share and was trading at about $65 by the end of last year. However, he notes the sector had been outperforming the rest of the market even before CSL came along. Despite common belief, the sector is not more volatile than others.

"Biotech in Australia consists of a large number of small companies," he says. "Not all will do well. But companies that have found a niche, exploit that and live through the early stages of ramping up the company have gone from strength to strength. Those that are successful can be very successful."

Other trends are at work, too. An ageing population is an obvious and often-cited factor. The percentage of the population aged over 65 rose from 8.3 per cent in 1971 to 12.4 per cent in 2001 and is forecast to jump to 21.3 per cent by 2031. These people are expected to be huge consumers of pharmaceutical products and the drug companies are eagerly formulating lots of new ones to keep them happy.

Another compelling reason for the sector's buoyancy is explained by Gavin Duffy, senior analyst with E.L. & C. Baillieu. "Healthcare in Australia is underwritten by government funding and the big health insurers," he says. "Sometimes the big funds put pressure on costs but at the end of the day whatever's agreed is paid out. You don't get a bad debt element. Producing drugs is a guaranteed income."

He says in recent years there has been a degree of rationalisation within the industry, reducing competition. "Look at Sigma," he says. "It dominates the domestic market. The Federal Government may put pressure on it under the Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme but it covers the field from manufacture to wholesale to retail. It has opportunities to preserve margins."

Nevertheless, investors need to be aware of the drawbacks. This is a diminutive sector that represents less than 1.4 per cent of the market. (By comparison, it is more than 7 per cent in both Britain and the US.)

Eighty seven pharmaceuticals and biotechnology companies are listed on the ASX but most are tiny, with products that are still yet to become a commercial reality.

Only three make it into the S&P/ASX 200 index of the 200 largest companies: CSL, Mayne Pharma and Sigma (and of these Mayne Pharma is about to be delisted following its acquisition by US company Hospira). A further 19 are in the S&P/ASX All Ordinaries index of the 500 largest stocks.

Those companies that have any earnings at all tend to be on high price-earnings ratios. Dividends, where they are paid, are usually small. Some of the stocks are barely liquid. And they are volatile.

Commsec says over the long term they are no more volatile than other industry groups but short-term price movements can cause heart-in the-mouth moments for even seasoned investors.

David Blake is co-editor of the Bioshares weekly stock report and has been covering the sector since 1998.

"A lot of hype surrounds the sector and you have to get away from this," he says. "You have to focus on the business. You have to look on each company as a business rather than as a cure for this or that. Don't fall in love with an exciting product. Do your homework. Ask questions. Learn all you can."

He concedes novice investors might be better advised to concentrate first on another sector, where the inevitable mistakes could be less costly. "Not everyone understands market behaviour. It catches people out. For example, you should be ready to take profits if a stock runs up too much. A good company with good products can still see its share price driven up to a point where it is too high. So a stock might fall 30 per cent for no apparent reason."

But his optimism remains high. "When you get through some of the negatives you discover that it is a very attractive sector," he says. "There is phenomenal demand growing for these products. We have barely scratched the surface of treating people's health-care problems."

Biotech stocks with a promising future

CSL Gavin Duffy at E.L. & C. Baillieu describes the company as "a world leader that will just keep on growing". It is already a global leader in blood products and flu vaccines and some analysts say its Gardasil cervical cancer vaccine could earn billions.

Peptech (PTD) David Blake of Bioshares recommends smaller stocks including Peptech, Biota and Sirtex Medical. Peptech, a leading developer of antibody drugs, is already profitable. It has no debt and good cash holdings, as well as a strong income stream from royalties and licence fees.

Biota Holdings (BTA) Although Biota is not in profit it does have strong cash holdings. Its Relenza anti-flu drug has huge potential and the company has some promising drugs to treat influenza, respiratory problems and hepatitis in the pipeline.

Sirtex Medical (SRX) A world leader in liver cancer drugs, with fast-growing sales and profits. Hunter Hall Investment Management has taken a large stake in the company. However, legal proceedings between the board and the founder are a negative.


----------



## britishcarfreak (28 January 2007)

I've been moving large chunks of my portfolio over to biotechs in the last few months.  RBY and BLT have given me some good movements but the volatilty is scary and I agree that you have to be prepared to sell on those peaks rather than have a long term commitment.  It seems market sentiment often turns sour pretty quick even after good announcements - take RBY and BLT as two prime examples.  Hype/Day-trading seems to drive these to excess.  I guess part of this is that people find it so hard to value 'blue sky' stuff like a 'cure for aids'.

Despite vast quantities of resources in the ground what else does Australia have to offer the global economy apart from inventions (biotech advances being in that space)?? 

With water issues and environmental concerns can we continue to offer any other form of wares to the world?  I've heard a number of respected public speakers and business minds talk about Australia's competitive differentiators and the like for moving forward in the next 20 years or so.... it wasn't all good... and I'm going with the theory that AUS is only left with innovation i.e. a brains trust sort of place... as it's future.  I know that's a very black and white statement but it helps me to understand why we should consider the biotech sector as the next big thing for AUS market / economy.

In my opinion we're going to see biotechs go pretty hard in the next few years in Australia - the only question in my mind is how long to keep riding resource stocks before transititioning over to biotechs?

My portfolio is purely in those two sectors - Resources and Biotech.  Although I'm going to take my biotech gains and move to some more stable less volatile sectors soon.

I don't expect everyone to agree - I'm just hoping to show a perspective.


----------



## ozewolf (28 January 2007)

Jay-684 said:
			
		

> Dont know if any of you saw it, but there was an article on the Biotech sector in the Money section of the paper on Wednesday (Sydney).
> 
> It states average annual returns since 1986 have been 25.5% with the last three years receiving returns of 40%+! Is this mainly due to CSL?
> 
> ...




I have been in and out of Peptech for some years...

Reality is that this stock is currently overlooked and therefor underpriced...
A true, or more accurate value of PTD is $1.75+, being the most cashed up Bio Co out of the lot.
Ozewolf... :horse:


----------



## dhukka (28 January 2007)

ozewolf said:
			
		

> I have been in and out of Peptech for some years...
> 
> Reality is that this stock is currently overlooked and therefor underpriced...
> A true, or more accurate value of PTD is $1.75+, being the most cashed up Bio Co out of the lot.
> Ozewolf... :horse:




Which reality would that be? The "I own it therefore it should be higher than it is now reality?" PTD current price $1.56, current P/E 49x, book value $0.52 cps (including cash of $0.25 cps), FY06 revenues down -55% on pcp FY06 NPAT down -80% on pcp. 

Care to enlighten us with how you come up with a valuation of $1.75+.


----------



## Gurgler (29 January 2007)

Anyone heard about (or holding) TIS Tissue Therapies a company engaged in research, development and commercialization of its international intellectual property in wound healing and tissue regeneration.

I can't find a thread - will start one if I can find out how.


----------



## Gurgler (30 January 2007)

Thanks Snakey, that was prompt!

Here's an ann found in The Age, which may help kick start some biotech stocks: 
"A NEW multimillion-dollar venture capital fund that aims to fill the shortfall in development dollars for early-stage medical innovations will come as a boost to Melbourne's medical research community."


http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/new-fund-for-medical-research/2007/01/29/1169919274127.html


----------



## constable (30 January 2007)

Just creating a watch list for the bio's
Feel free to add ta.
blt,bpo,bta,cir,csl,cuv,gtg,iba,imu,lbt,mbp,nal,nls,nrt,pgl,pno,poh,psd,ptd,pxs,rby,rhc,rtl,sbp,som,tis,vcr


----------



## chops_a_must (30 January 2007)

constable said:
			
		

> Just creating a watch list for the bio's
> Feel free to add ta.
> blt,bpo,bta,cir,csl,cuv,gtg,iba,imu,lbt,mbp,nal,nls,nrt,pgl,pno,poh,psd,ptd,pxs,rby,rhc,rtl,sbp,som,tis,vcr



coh, rmd


----------



## spottygoose (30 January 2007)

constable said:
			
		

> Just creating a watch list for the bio's
> Feel free to add ta.
> blt,bpo,bta,cir,csl,cuv,gtg,iba,imu,lbt,mbp,nal,nls,nrt,pgl,pno,poh,psd,ptd,pxs,rby,rhc,rtl,sbp,som,tis,vcr




AGX  for whatever its worth


----------



## TheAbyss (30 January 2007)

SRX


----------



## theasxgorilla (30 January 2007)

TheAbyss said:
			
		

> SRX




Indeed!  SRX=missed-the-boat


----------



## TheAbyss (30 January 2007)

ASX, you can still take a risk and swim the waters out to the boat! It hasnt left safe harbour yet.


----------



## GRTRADER (30 January 2007)

neu, pbp


----------



## theasxgorilla (30 January 2007)

TheAbyss said:
			
		

> ASX, you can still take a risk and swim the waters out to the boat! It hasnt left safe harbour yet.




 Indeed!  Lets see if it holds at new levels.  THAT would be a good sign.


----------



## billhill (30 January 2007)

good start to the year for the biggest biotech CSL. Has just announced they have successfully developed a bird flu vaccine.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1836551.htm

Will be interested to see if any governments put in an order.


----------



## ozewolf (30 January 2007)

constable said:
			
		

> Just creating a watch list for the bio's
> Feel free to add ta.
> blt,bpo,bta,cir,csl,cuv,gtg,iba,imu,lbt,mbp,nal,nls,nrt,pgl,pno,poh,psd,ptd,pxs,rby,rhc,rtl,sbp,som,tis,vcr





PRR ready to go north...


----------



## ozewolf (30 January 2007)

dhukka said:
			
		

> Which reality would that be? The "I own it therefore it should be higher than it is now reality?" PTD current price $1.56, current P/E 49x, book value $0.52 cps (including cash of $0.25 cps), FY06 revenues down -55% on pcp FY06 NPAT down -80% on pcp.
> 
> Care to enlighten us with how you come up with a valuation of $1.75+.




Dhukka,

December news (etrade) that may be of interest to you...

Business Impact: CEO, John Chiplin says he has been advised by two independent parties that PTD has no capital tax obligation on the profit made from the Domantis sale. This means PTD generates a cash profit of 1.08cps. After discounting the cash balance we come up with $1.12. Now PTD says it will receive $100-$130m in licensing revenue over the next four years from its licensing agreement with Abbot and J&J. This translates to a present value of $78m or 47.5cps, adding this to our cash figure takes the kitty up to $1.60. The remainder of the business is difficult to value. There are a number of listed biotech companies with promising technology under development but some years off from market trading around the $50m capitalisation mark. We understand the value of PN0621 in itself could be worth significantly more but with the high probabilities of compounds in phase one failing to reach market it is sensible to subscribe a conservative value, adding a further 30cps to our value take us to $1.90.

Forecast Impact: --

Recommendation Impact: We discount this conservative value by a further 15% to get to our accumulate trigger price of $1.60 for speculative investors, with the aim of taking part profits above $2.00. For our more conservative investors we suggest you invest in less volatile stocks that offer more consistent and predictable earning streams. (Last updated: 15/12/2006

Ozewolf


----------



## chops_a_must (31 January 2007)

billhill said:
			
		

> good start to the year for the biggest biotech CSL. Has just announced they have successfully developed a bird flu vaccine.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1836551.htm
> 
> Will be interested to see if any governments put in an order.



Yet they haven't announced anything officially.


----------



## dhukka (31 January 2007)

ozewolf said:
			
		

> Dhukka,
> 
> 
> Business Impact: CEO, John Chiplin says he has been advised by two independent parties that PTD has no capital tax obligation on the profit made from the Domantis sale. This means PTD generates a cash profit of 1.08cps. After discounting the cash balance we come up with $1.12. Now PTD says it will receive $100-$130m in licensing revenue over the next four years from its licensing agreement with Abbot and J&J. This translates to a present value of $78m or 47.5cps, adding this to our cash figure takes the kitty up to $1.60. The remainder of the business is difficult to value. There are a number of listed biotech companies with promising technology under development but some years off from market trading around the $50m capitalisation mark. We understand the value of PN0621 in itself could be worth significantly more but with the high probabilities of compounds in phase one failing to reach market it is sensible to subscribe a conservative value, adding a further 30cps to our value take us to $1.90.
> ...




My apologies ozewolf, jumped the gun. Whilst I don't agree with the DCF above it does look more attractive being one of the more cashed up biotechs. NTA rises to $1.45ps of which $1.23 is cash. Still paying a high multiple but given they have the cash resources to take clinical trials through all three phases independently, which not many biotechs have the resources to do, and a reliable income stream for the next 4 years they are well positioned to leverage their product pipeline.


----------



## TheAbyss (31 January 2007)

Better add NEU to the list. Up 9% today


----------



## constable (31 January 2007)

TheAbyss said:
			
		

> Better add NEU to the list. Up 9% today



Added thankyou....thats some retrace going on there!


----------



## j4mesa (1 February 2007)

I have mentioned AVX couple of times but then no-one responded maybe because I am new.......

Look at the chart I posted on the outstanding breakouts and the sp until now.

IMHO,They have a good management and they are experimenting about AIDS !!!  
See how it goes.......


----------



## TheAbyss (2 February 2007)

PLT - Polartechnics is another for the bio list. Seems to have had a bit of movement since Nov


----------



## PJ83 (24 February 2007)

Hi guys first post. It's the biotech talk that finally made me register.

Check out biotechdaily.com.au   it's a biotech newsletter, and the editor David Langsam is a massive bull on this sector. 

Go to board room radio brr.com.au for the uninitiated to get a free market wrap from biotech daily. I check it out every day, easy to stay updated. In this presentation there's a biotech sector graph compared to all ords and biotech EASILY outperforms.

I am excited about this sector but be cautious! Metabolic recently released disappointing trial results just before market open, and dropped 70% on open and closed thereabouts. There was no chance to get out. 

I think the most important features to consider in biotechs are:

* Stage of development of products (otherwise you'll be waiting years till revenue and price increase)
* Market for products
* Patents/likelihood of technology becoming redundant 
* Management quality

For the patient researcher there's some 10-100 baggers out there though.


----------



## pacer (24 February 2007)

SLA is another making great leaps and bounds. read thier announcements over the last 4 months and you'll see why, any analysis here would be ramping, just have a look and make your own decision.


----------



## PJ83 (24 February 2007)

Tell us anyway, I just had a look at it. It's not ramping if you have a disclaimer!


What's so good about it?


----------



## Dave31 (25 February 2007)

I've posted on FER a few times.

They are a company that is using their technology to scan pieces of hair to detect breast cancer. Their trials have been positive, and are still continuing. There is a possibility in the future to have their technology modified to detect other forms of cancer such as Bowel... and alzeheimers.

To me this looks promising as their technology is being used, and accepted in radiology clinics in NSW and VIC. It provides a non-invasive way to detect for cancer. Now that has alot of potential in my view.


----------



## TheAbyss (26 February 2007)

has anyone read or heard anything that would account for the increase in activity with volumes and SP on PLT?


----------



## constable (27 February 2007)

After todays effort  i have nearly 40% of my portfolio in biotechs! Havent really looked at it like that before.  Remainder in mining and gas projects.
May well be a safe haven in months to come with some of these more obscure stocks well out of the mainstream market.


----------



## pacer (28 February 2007)

_Melbourne based biotech Solagran Limited (ASX: SLA) has announced an important extension to the successful neurodegenerative disorders trials it is conducting in both Melbourne and St Petersburg_ Since listing in August 2003, Solagran has been commercialising a range of natural pharmaceuticals known as Bioeffectives. These multiple molecule substances each have many applications but few if any side effects. They are obtained from green conifer needles using a patented extraction process. Solagran acquired the underlying intellectual property from the St Petersburg Forest Technical Academy in the late 1990s in a commercial arrangement that involved key scientists acquiring a substantial shareholding in the company. Further development enabled the company to acquire a comprehensive new global technology patent not long after it listed a little over three years ago. Solagran is now poised to lead world in production of this new category of pharmaceuticals, which includes a particularly valuable class of substance known as polyprenols. Solagran’s Bioeffective R is comprised entirely of polyprenols.

In 2005, Solagran conducted successful trials at St Petersburg’s Skvortsova-Stepanova Psychiatric Hospital using Ropren (the finished dose form of Bioeffective R) to treat Alzheimer’s patients. The results demonstrated that administration of Ropren for a four month period led to an average 38 percent improvement in cognitive function among patients who had been suffering from Alzheimer’s for between six months and four years. 44 percent of patients experienced an improvement in cognitive function of 50 percent or more. 24 percent experienced an improvement of 100 percent or more. The trials also demonstrated that treatment with Ropren resulted in the elimination of most other Alzheimer’s symptoms, including depression. It also led to a normalisation of the activity of key enzymes in blood plasma, which in the opinion of Solagran Executive Chairman Dr Vagif Soultanov, provides evidence of a link between liver degeneration and the incidence of neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer’s – something he has hypothesized for many years. (This might explain the relatively high incidence of these disorders in western society where liver degeneration arising from inappropriate diet, alcohol abuse, and the widespread consumption of prescription and over the counter drugs, is also relatively high.)

Following this and other studies in St Petersburg, further trials to understand Ropren’s potential were undertaken in Melbourne by Swinburne University’s Brain Sciences Institute on 100 healthy volunteers aged 60 to 85 years. The positive preliminary results of these trials were announced last November. They indicated that treatment with Ropren led to:

1. A 15 percent or more improvement in memory function and speed of recall. This was a significant uplift for healthy volunteers in this age group. 
2. Significant improvements in liver function (particularly in its protein synthesising function) together with other blood biochemical indices.
3. A marked reduction in Low Density Lipoproteins (LDL) combined with an equally marked increase in High Density Lipoproteins (HDL). This has major implications for the potential use of Ropren as a treatment to normalise cholesterol levels. 
4.        No adverse outcomes or side effects. 

The final report from the Swinburne University study is to be received by Solagran in mid February 2007.  

While the Swinburne trials were under way, a further trial involving the use of Ropren to treat critically ill heroin-addicted chronic alcoholics was completed at the Skvortsova-Stepanova Hospital. While not yet released for reasons related to ongoing intellectual property protection work, Solagran says the findings from the trial are significant. Some feedback from the research team was announced in October 2006 – including a firm policy decision by the hospital to incorporate Ropren into its clinical practice for the treatment of drug induced psychoses and other conditions associated with alcohol and drug addiction. 

As a direct result of the clinical outcomes achieved with that trial, Solagran has now reached an agreement with the Head Physician and scientific medical team of the Skvortsova-Stepanova Hospital to conduct a virtually identical trial using another of its family of 15 Bioeffectives – in this case Bioeffective A. Bioeffective A is already listed with the TGA in Australia, and is now the subject of an NDI application with the Food and Drug Administration in the USA.

Both Solagran and the research team at the Skvortsova-Stepanova hospital believe that use of Bioeffective A, either in conjunction with or as and adjunct to treatment with Ropren, could have the potential to produce a number of positive physiological and neurological clinical outcomes for alcoholics and heroin addicts. This could lead to a treatment regime involving a relatively short treatment with Ropren combined with longer term treatment with lower cost Bioeffective A. 

The new St Petersburg trial involves 50 patients aged 18 to 60 years. It has already commenced and the final report will be delivered by June 1 this year. 

While the focus of much of the recent research with Ropren has been focused on its use in the prevention and treatment of neurodegenerative disorders, Ropren has a wide range of applications. It has also been shown to enhance immune system response and has already completed clinical trials as a safe and highly effective treatment for chronic liver disease. It is expected to be listed in the Russian Pharmacopoeia for this application in March 2007. There are 10 million Russians with chronic liver disease so the initial demand is expected to be significant. 

Solagran is currently gearing up for full scale commercial production. Once this production capacity is up and running, regulations will permit Solagran to directly supply three month courses of the drug for personal use to people in many countries throughout the world. 

A Director of Solagran, Mr Peter Stedwell, told Australian Investor that the Board believed its international trials and market development strategy would soon generate significant revenues. “The entry of Ropren into the Russian Pharmacopoeia will be quite an achievement just four years after listing on the ASX. The trial results suggest that Ropren could be a leading product in a number of large international pharmaceutical markets in the relatively near future” Stedwell said. 

The Solagran website is at www.solagran.com




[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You couldn't have asked for a better [/font]


----------



## pacer (28 February 2007)

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You couldn't have asked for a better "buy" signal…[/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Last year, a group of the most powerful investors in the world announced their intention to make one of the market's most ignored sectors their top investment priority in 2007.[/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It's not the hedge-fund or mutual-fund industry, although they're interested in the sector, too. It's a much different crowd… one that has more of a direct impact on the targeted industry. The group I'm referring to is the world's largest drug makers, collectively referred to as "Big Pharma." [/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Their target is the biotech industry.[/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you're not familiar with biotech medicines, you should be, as they differ greatly from traditional chemistry-based medicines. Biotech medicines are displacing traditional drugs because they work much better. They work better because they're built with a rational design. They're made from living cells, and are often actual molecules like proteins or enzymes... traditional pharma drugs are just different types of chemicals.[/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To put it simply, the future of medicine is biotech. Four of the top five drug companies in the world have identified biotech as the center of their strategic focus for 2007. [/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In fact, the CEOs of two of these companies, Pfizer and Merck, have  publicly stated desires for their companies to become _the _top biotech company in the world within a few years. To reach the top spot, these companies will have to spend many billions of dollars in research and acquisitions.[/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Naturally, all of this translates into the prospect of huge returns for biotech investors in the near term, beginning this year.[/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In 2006, Big Pharma and biotech reached more than 230 deals – up 32% from 2005. And the transactions were 20% richer for the biotechs, a sign of increasing leverage for the smaller parties at the negotiation table. There were also 10 acquisitions on the year – a record number. [/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Buyout premiums were up, with an average of 62% per deal. Yet, many of these buyouts took place at payout premiums greater than 100%. For example, one of our _Phase 1 Investor_ holdings, Sirna Therapeutics, was acquired  by Merck for $1.1 billion. The acquisition resulted in an immediate 100%  gain. [/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The increased merger and acquisition trend that took off last year will certainly continue into 2007. The big drug companies continue to face eroding sales from blockbusters coming off patent and ensuing generic drug competition. [/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pfizer stands to lose half of its $50 billion revenue to generics in the next five years. Merck lost $3 billion this year alone when Zocor, the cholesterol drug, came off patent. Big Pharma will continue to be forced to turn to the biotech sector in search of new products to replace eroding sales.[/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Here's why Big Pharma is turning to biotech: [/font]

                                               [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.[/font]                   [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The bulk of innovation in drug discovery takes place in the biotech sector. Most big drug companies are nothing more than massive selling machines.[/font]                                                     [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2.[/font]                   [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Because of       their complexity and specificity, biotech drugs command premium prices.[/font]                                                     [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3.[/font]                   [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Biotech drugs       are immune to generic competition…       at least for now.[/font]                                           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Almost every big drug company has laid out cost-cutting tactics in their budget plans for the upcoming year. Pfizer, for example, plans to cut 20% of its sales force.[/font]

           [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Still, the Big Pharma coffers are chock full of cash, and a good chunk of that money will be flowing to biotech this year. Investing alongside them will be one of the smartest things you can do with your money in 2007.......




IMO buy some......
[/font]


----------



## Sean K (2 March 2007)

If anyone is interested, I have access to a weekly newsletter which analyses Biotechnology stocks.

Unfortunately, it is a subscriber service and I can not place it on a public forum, although I am happy to email to ASF members personally.

If you are interested in the newsletter, please PM me with your email address and I will create a distribution list for the newsletter. I will send it out bcc, so your email address is safe.

Cheers,
kennas


----------



## Sean K (14 March 2007)

Just bumping this in case anyone missed it and would like the newsletter.



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> If anyone is interested, I have access to a weekly newsletter which analyses Biotechnology stocks.
> 
> Unfortunately, it is a subscriber service and I can not place it on a public forum, although I am happy to email to ASF members personally.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gar (15 March 2007)

Thanks mate


----------



## Out Too Soon (15 March 2007)

No, they're not!
Unless you get very lucky (like Pacer & his cat)   biotechs are never the flavour of the year, month whatever. At least that's what I've found.


----------



## pacer (18 April 2007)

That's not what everyone is saying now OTS.....BPO just got a piece of SLA's pie and will do similar things imo....blue sky.

Others are going gangbusters too.

I'm enjoying getting out of commodities for a while.


----------

