||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
|Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology
Circassia Share Discussion Threads
Showing 901 to 923 of 925 messages
|This is not making any recovery and serves as a reminder of the risks in this type of investment. Probably better to invest via a Fund to spread risk.|
|Circassia Pharmaceuticals extended Tuesday’s rebound
23rd June 2016
Circassia Pharmaceuticals, which on Monday tumbled more than 60 per cent after its cat allergy trial collapsed, extended Tuesday’s rebound, climbing 8.7 per cent, or 8.5p to 105.5p.|
|Peel Hunt said: Circassia uncertainty overhang medium-term unless a strategic bid emerges.
21st June 2016
|RBC Capital Markets, Peel Hunt Circassia slashed after poor test results - http://www.directorstalk.com/circassia-slashed-poor-test-results/ … - #CIR|
|Tempus in today's Times says its a buy.
When Circassia came to the market in 2014 at 310p a share, it was seen as the owner of a promising but unproven treatment for allergies, including hay fever. En route the company paid £239 million for a couple of companies making treatments for asthma and pulmonary disease, raising fresh funds at 288p a share. The first widescale trials of that allergy treatment for people allergic to cats have been an unmitigated disaster. Put simply, sufferers given the treatment did well but so did those given a placebo. This is frankly baffling. Circassia is giving up trials of the same treatment for sufferers of hay fever and those allergic to ragweed, though two others are sufficiently well advanced that there is no point in abandoning them. The conclusion of these may give an idea why the feline trials went so badly and whether the treatment has any value whatsoever.
This leaves the company with those asthma products, several of which are on the market. If the study was baffling, the market’s response was equally so. Circassia shares lost two thirds of their value, falling 179¼p to 91p. This gives it a market capitalisation of £257 million. Tot up the cost of those acquisitions and the cash in the bank and you get to £379 million. This suggests that the fall in the price is wildly overdone, assuming those businesses bought have the value ascribed to them, with the original allergy treatment assigned no value whatsoever.
Any biotech company is always going to be speculative, but this looks a good gamble.
MY ADVICE Buy
WHY Risky, but the share price fall looks overdone|
|Dead cat bounce.......|
|Numis said: Circassia Pharmaceuticals has collapsed 64%
20th June 2016
|Can't see this bouncing till the low 50's|
|Oh dear looks like 40p is on the cards cash at the bank valuation.|
|Also Woody sells he BT stake why?|
|Never admit that you were wrong or the game's all over
|will this bounce?|
|Oh dear, Woody's lost another £100m of other people's money|
|bleaurghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh puh.... puh..... my money!!!!|
|dead cat bounce?|
|This cat's dead.
There are a whole lot of other fat cats in the portfolio...stuck high up in the tree.|
|Not looking forward to them now......|
|As expected and to schedule, "...we are looking forward to receiving the results from our cat allergy pivotal phase III study in the coming weeks." Pivotal indeed.|
|To be fair, it's hard to discern anything from that other than he doesn't like it.|
|I see Evil Knievel has put the boot in:
Poor old Neil Woodford. The investing public have really got it in for him now. He’s an example of the longstanding observation that first they put you on a pedestal and then they knock you down. His investment in Circassia (CIR) seems to be another example. Anyway, it seems that there is nothing in this company whatsoever. At 315p it is capitalised at £900m as against ntav of £169m at 30th June 2015. This figure is falling since losses are running at around £50m p.a.!
There is circa £200m of cash. Which is a lot for a deadbeat proposition. However, the end result is the same.|
|Shame he doesn't say what price the cat allergy treatment should go at.
Rhinitis mention here:
"In April 2000, Respiratory Reviews published a study indicating that a patient's out-of-pocket drug costs for treating year-round allergic rhinitis was $1,200. But researcher Timothy J. Sullivan III, MD, of Emory University, calculated that the same patient would pay only $800 for the first year of allergy shots -- the most expensive year. In following years, when allergy shots are done monthly or even less frequently, those costs drop to between $290 and $170. Over six years, that amounts to a $1,300 to $2,900 savings with allergy shots, that study shows."
And here for asthma:
"less than" $1000 per year for 3-5 years is quoted here: hTtp://www.asthmacenter.com/index.php/news/details/allergy_shots/
Also, the mention of ragwort failing is confusing. I thought it was ragweed and that's ongoing testing.|