Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Oxford Biomedica LSE:OXB London Ordinary Share GB0006648157 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 4.55p 4.50p 4.78p - - - 581,385 12:48:52
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 27.8 -20.3 -0.6 - 140.51

Oxford Biomedica (OXB) Latest News

More Oxford Biomedica News
Oxford Biomedica Takeover Rumours

Oxford Biomedica (OXB) Share Charts

1 Year Oxford Biomedica Chart

1 Year Oxford Biomedica Chart

1 Month Oxford Biomedica Chart

1 Month Oxford Biomedica Chart

Intraday Oxford Biomedica Chart

Intraday Oxford Biomedica Chart

Oxford Biomedica (OXB) Discussions and Chat

Oxford Biomedica Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
27/4/201713:09Oxford Biomedica Bulls Only Thread23,582.00
21/1/201719:55Only worth 1.25p on fundamentals....19.00
24/12/201515:10Oxford Biomedica Bears Only thread5.00
18/7/201413:56Welcome To The Greatest Short On ADVFN Sponsored By tony979 !41.00

Add a New Thread

Oxford Biomedica (OXB) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Oxford Biomedica trades in real-time

Oxford Biomedica (OXB) Top Chat Posts

Oxford Biomedica Daily Update: Oxford Biomedica is listed in the Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker OXB. The last closing price for Oxford Biomedica was 4.55p.
Oxford Biomedica has a 4 week average price of 4.51p and a 12 week average price of 3.80p.
The 1 year high share price is 6.05p while the 1 year low share price is currently 3p.
There are currently 3,088,217,926 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 3,747,484 shares. The market capitalisation of Oxford Biomedica is £140,513,915.63.
harry s truman: Beanol, Not arguing here, but just some tempering points:- Most people get places by happen-stance. Life has a lot more to do with opportunity than ability. I have an acquaintance of long-standing (he isn't a friend as I think he's a git and he knows that I do) who ended up heading the EU division of a US company that you've heard of on the back some random 3rd party events that he'd admit to you that he couldn't have planned. It's just life. My little anecdote there aside, JD gets a bit of a bad press from shareholders mainly because he doesn't come across particularly well and because the in-house pipeline hasn't moved much. However, neither of those two things mean that he's deficient in the thinking department and the reverse is much more likely to be true. I've previously given JD a lot of stick for selling huge numbers of shares to fund the purchase of the factory when I thought that it would have been better to fund a quick confirmatory trial for the biomarker pre-selection theory with TroVax. That was a long time ago now (8 years?) but the first of the IRS streamed TroVax trials has results in now and it didn't set the world on fire. So if that's indicative of the other trials to come, then he made the right decision. We still have 3 more TroVax trials to report, but the first one in CRC (historically our best indication) hasn't materially changed the company's prospects. The other thing that (from our point of view) he has struggled to do is partner / sell / spin out anything from our pipeline that either we can't fund or don't want to. However, there's every chance that there just isn't the interest in the drugs. I'm sure you realise this already, but the earlier the trial stage at deal time then the cheaper the price to the partner as they are accepting more risk. EncorStat (donor cornea treatment) hasn't even been tried in people yet, so how big could that deal really be? RetinoStat has been tried in 20 odd people and had a good indication of the result that they were looking for in 1 person. ProSavin was likely tried on people who had been immobile for too long and then they changed the protocol halfway through to try to improve things on the fly resulting yet again in 1 good result (or shall we say 1 very public result). TroVax has only ever shown good results in subsets and when they then streamed to just treat those subsets, the first trial did not show an across the board good result - so the streaming plainly isn't perfect. I could go on but you've heard all this before and the point I'm making is that JD may not be able to sell these drugs in any kind of deal that makes sense for OXB. This is why I've said many times that any deal is better than none, but it may simply be that there isn't a deal on the table to take. OXB aren't the only company in town with drugs for sale. ProSavin seems our best in-house bet to me and we have manufactured the stronger dose for the second P2 trial, but that doesn't guarantee a partner. We may be waiting for a 3rd way (self fund with money from manufacturing) even for our "best" in house drug. All that was a long way of saying that with hindsight the factory was the way to go and our own drugs may simply not be attractive enough. I agree about the happen-stance bit in that the factory was bought to help partner ProSavin when Novartis was nowhere to be seen, but without that where would we be? You mention the Diggles ousting JD, which is something that I've previously wondered about myself. You may have seen me float the idea here that Tim would perhaps eventually displace JD (they are both chartered accountants by trade, but Tim would be in the position to step in if JD was ejected). However, as per the recent RNS Tim is retiring and obviously has no interest in taking over from JD. Having listened to Diggle snr on that video I'm absolutely sure that he saw OXB as either failing or being bought out. In either of those scenarios it doesn't really matter who is in charge, but as it's now a lot more likely to be the latter, why cause uncertainty and confusion when you can stick with a known quantity? Pram has met JD personally (I haven't) but to reiterate my earlier point I feel it would be a mistake to assume that his abilities aren't in keeping with his position. Situations tend to evolve and plans are rarely perfect, but I'm of a mind that the liaison with Novartis has kept us from administration (sooner or later there would have been no way to raise the next lot of money) and it seems to me that the Novartis deal is down to JD. I'm going to say that the Diggles think that too and are happy for JD to be in charge when the new owners take over in x years time. It may be that RetinoStat and some of the other in-house drugs just do nothing. If, in a few month's time the share price is 20p on the back of earnings prospects following the FDA approval for CTL019, would you care?
sddavies1: Its a frustrating shame that, despite Novartis delivering on their promises for something that is key to our future, the OXB share price is still languishing below its recent highs.Instead of remaining silent. Its high time BoD started to make noises about how they plan to deal with the debt that has cast a shadow over proceedings.I know that everything is starting to look rosy on paper but to me it seems that unless they start to add capital value soon, we will be sittings ducks for a nice cheap buy out.
marcusl2: Here is the biggy....................... They are assuming OXB receives 4% royalties on CTL019 ! We estimate that Novartis will achieve sales of $2.05bn per annum from CTL-019 by 2025. OXB could, therefore, receive a total of $82.0m in royalties per annum, in addition to manufacturing revenue. OXB-102 OXB-102 should be in sales by 2030. Time is needed to secure a partner (2H-‘17E), complete clinical trials (2028E), and achieve market authorisation. An estimated 610k people over 50 years of age will have Parkinson’s in the US, and 1,200k in Europe, by 20304 . We estimate that OXB-102 could reach $1.8bn annual sales in EU and US; assuming 10% royalties, OXB will make $181m per annum plus manufacturing fees. This is based on the following assumptions: Assuming 50% penetration rate at peak in US and EU, OXB-202 could be grafted into around 4,300 patients per year. At a price of $20k per cornea, and 10% royalties to OXB, OXB could receive $8.6m annually. This would increase as the product enters additional markets, such as low-risk and first-time corneal grafts. On this basis, it would be rational to apply an EV/sales multiple of 4-5x to OXB’s bioprocessing business service business, especially when it is being validated and underpinned by Novartis. This would imply an EV of ca.£188-£;235m based on future sales, just for this part of the business. , Hardman estimates that OXB has a risk-adjusted valuation of 7.5p per share. Further positive news flow from Novartis on CTL109 – successful completion of trials – would change the riskadjustment and increase the valuation, suggesting that this share price level is likely to be reached relatively quickly. The book value of the GMP manufacturing and HQ fixed assets, £27.5m, is assumed to be inherent in the EV/sales multiple.
beanol: Yes Harry. Agree your last para. But sadly it seems ref Oxb share price wise the market has become, because of the various disappointments and non fulfilments of 'promises' very binary/empirical. Has to be concrete events rather than expectation that will drive it up of which the expected Novartis FDA filing is the first challenge.
beanol: Yes Marcus indeed. Very promising. BUT why with all this positive news and it being fairly clearly known that Oxb has a role to play which will hugely benefit the company has there been no upwards movement in the Oxb share price - aren't markets supposed to rise ahead of major announcements? Or is the market so mistrustful of Oxb management and its past record that.....
beanol: HarryFrom reading your always thoughtful and considered posts for years I know you have a deep well of understanding about Oxb which the rest of us profit from and I certainly for one will never rival or come near. But right now (2017) there's a business imperative on the march - Novartis and Car T therapy : I am clear from a combination of the following: letter LT wrote following two specific complaints I made, speaking to people connected to Novartis, others involved in the haplessly managed fund raising last year that this year if not now or never for Oxb will certainly be pretty critical for the company. No substantive progress for Novartis no progression for Oxb share price. But if progress for Novartis and Car T then we get into a virtuous circle which will per force mean a closer relationship or more with Novartis. Given what the latter have riding on Car T there is likely to be no other alternative. I can't believe Trovax or any other drug from Oxb's stable will (really) come into the reckoning. Time will tell obviously but let's see where we are end of April. In writing this I realise I am becoming a one trick pony but in spite of its pretensions to wider success so I'm afraid Oxb may be becoming too.
harry s truman: Hello Pram, I accept that there are 2 sides to this and both have some merit. In an absolute nutshell:- I'm thinking that Novartis already have everything they need tied into what looks to me like an open ended service contract that will have to be honoured regardless of who owns OXB. You're thinking that the co-development agreement is already very close and will become so intertwined upon success that the simplest thing to do would be to absorb OXB into Novartis allowing them to use further developments of LentiVector across many future products without licence / manufacturing issues, whilst also inheriting the possible fruits of any other non-exclusive licences. Orchard being the most recent example of that. I'm at ease with it but would stress my points in a slightly different way:- 1) We're essentially talking about the future here as Novartis won't do anything before they get a licence and discover what the market really is. 2) Many past references / examples suggest that successful drug development companies are far more likely to be absorbed by a large pharmaceutical company than actually grow into a pharmaceutical company themselves. I think we all accept that if OXB have a good result or two then they will become a target. This investment has to end for us all sometime and I much prefer that end game to the administration route which chases all cash-burn development companies at some point. 3) Last point is simply a reiteration to think about the numbers involved here. By the time that Novartis are selling the first CAR-T drug then not only will OXB be receiving milestones and royalties for that, but they will also have seen the BLA submission for the second CAR-T drug and the results for the first 2 TroVax trials. I won't pick a random share price because we already have a broker target of 12p based on the known CAR-T program alone, but the potential is there for the share price to be much higher than that. Add a bid premium and on 3bn shares it really is a lot of money. Even for large pharmaceutical companies it's a lot of money. Yet currently Novartis hold a relatively tiny stake and made no effort (that we know of) to take a block in the last placing. With all that in mind it strikes me that they aren't currently interested, but it might change for a "sure thing" later - even if they have to pay 10x the cost now in exchange for that much reduced risk later.
beanol: Ref Harry's previous few posts and Marcus's dreams I offer the following:What success looks like obviously evolves and morphs for most companies and especially one like Oxb which unfortunately seems mired in permanent adolescence. But it seems to me that, if we are lucky, we are approaching an inflection point which will decide the future of the company and our lot as shareholders. That inflection point is the filing in Q1 2017 with the US FDA for CTL019. If this process goes smoothly Novartis will surely want to tie down all key elements in the development and production chain of which Oxb is one part. If this happens Novartis will further want all these key elements to come under their governance and tech criteria - which is likely to mean them wanting to either take a bigger stake in Oxb or buying the whole company. Should this happen the multiple may be unlikely to be in the realms of 50x but could comfortably see us having an share price in the order of 20p plus. Quite a few posters have made the point that they want Oxb's own drug pipeline to take pride of place and that this is why they invested in Oxb. Fair point. Me too. But I don't think this is 'real world' thinking - given we are where we are - especially when there is an attractive and viable alternative path. Besides which, how would Oxb finance continuing to go its own way - the last fund raising was a fiasco or actually worse given the way JD handled it ie beyond incompetent and he should surely have lost his job for that? The fact remains that Oxb has lost the confidence of the market and will have difficulty raising further funds without clear breakthroughs. Posters have also made the point that Oxb becoming a largely manufacturing company will further depress the SP/expectations - well yes to some extent but Oxb is not manufacturing paracetamol. Its Oxb's hi tech specialised delivery process which provides the platform which allows the whole Novartis chain to work - they couldn't replicate this speedily. Simpler and more efficient to bring Oxb in house. If there's progress this year on e.g. Trovax then great but I'm confident it is developments in CTL019 and Novartis's decisions which has the best chance of us seeing Oxb end 2017 on a multiple of the current share price or even better.
philh75: Anyone concerned about the potential shock impact of a leave vote to oxb share price, or uk shares in general?
harry s truman: Doc, Interesting point re replacement on the same terms. I think the actual terms are very much secondary in most people's minds - we all accept these days that CEO's will generally pay themselves whatever they can - it's the performance of the share price which is the metric for most people. If the share price performance was good then the money to JD would be no issue for most. I've nothing against JD personally. I've disagreed with some of the decisions that he has made, but at the end of the day I am a shareholder typing on a BB and he is a CEO with a room full of advisers. It's unlikely that I'm the one who knows best and I simply have to hope that he acts on the best available advice. However, shareholder inclusiveness under him is the pits. We were probably spoiled somewhat by the previous regime, but these days what we get appears to be the absolute minimum that he can get away with. Even the Edison reports seem to have dried up now. Until recently we were able to bypass the stonewall of OXB and keep track of recruitment in the TroVax trials via that UKCRN website, but that seems to have closed down and so now we will have no idea on the progress of any of these trials until OXB deem to make an announcement (or not). Had JD made a serious effort to make us feel included then he would have gained an awful lot of goodwill on here. As it is though, there are now plenty of people who look how much money he earns with his salary, his bonuses, his share options and such, before pondering (often out loud) his actual value to us given the share price. He hasn't done himself any favours in that respect. I think it was yourself on here a long time ago who told us that JD's big claim to fame was being tasked with buying a European division for Cephalon, but following that shopping spree he and them seemed to part company. Perhaps I've not got that 100%, but I certainly remember the OXB appointment notice quoting a turnover figure for the division that he grew for Cephalon (which I assume means acquired for them). I'm sure he's a bright chap, but he just doesn't ever come across as a CEO that you'd want to have interviewed by Paxman or facing a house of commons committee. If he was in the right place at the right time during some tumultuous events for OXB then good luck to him, but that doesn't mean that we owe him a living forever. Should OXB ever make that leap from biotech drug development (and now contract manufacturing / technology partnering) into a pharmaceutical company with its own licensed drug (not impossible - others have done it) then I could easily foresee a situation where Martin and the other major shareholders would thank him for all of his hard work during the transition, pay him up whatever his evergreen and his options are worth, then introduce the man or woman to guide the company through its next phase. Anyway, that aside and for what it's worth, I'm still very positive about OXB. I think we're in much better shape than we have been for years. I have this idea (and it might be Pram who intimated this - but apologies if it wasn't) that we were told in the past that OXB weren't chasing Lentivector contracts too hard as the Novartis deal basically tied everything up. This seemed to be confirmed by OXB directly in the placing RNS, when they explained that production income for H1 2015 was hit whilst they produced the clinical trial material for our upcoming ProSavin trial. In other words they couldn't produce Lentivactor for CAR-T engineering for Novartis and Lentivector for ProSavin gene transport simultaneously. They didn't have the capacity and thus only H2 2015 had full production Novartis earnings. They explain in the results this week that "our cGMP clean room capacity has more than doubled to 950m2. We are expanding this capacity further, and with the recent completion of GMP2 will have three independent production suites totalling 1,200m2.". So there are several ways to look at this:- We could now work on our in house drugs and those for Novartis simultaneously (but unless RetinoStat needs new dose levels it's hard to see the immediate need for that). We could simply expand our production for Novartis which in round figures was £10m for H2 2015 on the original capacity - not the 2 stage expansion to 950 or 1200m2. But more likely to me is that we very quickly now bring on-board another Novartis type contract from one of the many companies that have been using our Lentivector on a research licence. There are a lot of them and some will go into the clinic. I think this / these are what OXB are hinting at when they say in the results that "Our work with Novartis has enhanced our credibility in the sector and we are in discussions with a number of third parties working in a variety of cell therapy areas to provide such services and IP licences". Then later they add "Partnering revenues should continue to grow strongly in 2016" and in the outlook they say that "we plan to advance our integrated business through a number of inflection points." To me that says another manufacturing partner is in the wings - and I remember what share price we went from and to following the Novartis deal. This also fits with the idea of a small agreed placing to get us to a certain point (which seemed a very precise sum) prior to a much bigger open offer at a much higher price - possibly to get rid of the Oberland loan facility and clear the decks of the manufacturing expansion costs. Whether it's a large increase in manufacturing earnings from Novartis or another manufacturing partner / new partners - or both - it doesn't really matter to me. Hoping for both doesn't seem to be unrealistic.
Oxford Biomedica share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
Gulf Keyst..
FTSE 100
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:32 V: D:20170427 12:55:15