Alizyme Share Discussion Threads

[the_doctor] 26/8/2009 15:49

mike, there was a comparator arm.

I didnt really stick around, so not sure of all details
just dumped my holding asap that day!

[mad mike] 26/8/2009 15:27

the_doctor, (all academic now) but wasn't the issue about the colal pred trial that it was missing a particular comparison leg (plecebo?, competitor's drug?), whose significance only became obvious to everyone once the results came in i.e. a trial design issue. Then it was too late, as we were running out of money.

[the_doctor] 26/8/2009 14:59

Do you know there was something wrong with the design dunders?

I dont.
Repeat the same design and it could pass

[dunderheed] 26/8/2009 14:31

They weren't unlucky - it was trial design/strategy - simple really!

[the_doctor] 26/8/2009 14:27

cheers mike, or for some of it ;o)
[some have accused you of posting reams of rubbish on the MDX thread - you'll perhaps note that I've been one of the few to support your options points]

mach6 is a bitter chump that turns up on various threads to make some unpleasant remark
I suspect he also posts under other usernames and doesnt have the guts to offend using them.
I've offered to discuss his issues on the phone, but the coward wont do it (dont start using 'cowardly' just because I did mach6)

As you correctly point out, I have never talked up ceti and was never a fan of anything of AZM's
I did think Colal Pred stood a high likelihood of passing PIII and they were unlucky there.

[mach6] 26/8/2009 13:33

mad mike, that was when he did not hold shares however he did hold AZM shares for a brief period whilst I was shorting and at that time was talking Ceti up as a deal candidate and AZM in general which was why he had bought. You are right about him being a noise machine though and I enjoy winding him up.
For those of you who still hold I hope you do get something back from this sorry situation.

[dunderheed] 26/8/2009 12:02

Agree!
I was realising this more and more but hoped that the calming words of team leader liar would crystallise - this did not occur of course!!

[mad mike] 26/8/2009 11:26

mach6, to be fair to the_doctor, he never ramped ceti. He always argued:-
- ceti was a drug that didn't do too much,
- its side-effect advantages over Alli/orilistat where not as significant as management had made out over the years
- the Phase III trials is going to be very expensive (well we all knew about $100M was required)
- and Alli, would be difficult to displace in the retail market, due to the heavy promotion of the brand over (what will be) many years
- thus he deduced the cost of taking on cetilistat would be too great giving the marketing risk, plus the risk of other potential competitors over time.
- that would just leave ceti in Japan, where there currently is little or no competition, and no presence of the Alli brand.

I'm no great fan of the_doctor, as he is frequently a noise machine, pumping out poorly thought out scenarios at a rapid rate.

However, fair play, he seemed to get his analysis of cetilistat right, & has been consistent in his position.

[dunderheed] 26/8/2009 07:11

mach6 - have you read my posts - I am joking about divvys - we may get something but likely 1p-2p max (per share held)!!

[ps0u3165] 25/8/2009 22:52

nice one mac.

[dunderheed] 25/8/2009 13:06

Yes okay t-d - but what about a 20p divvy then?

[the_doctor] 25/8/2009 12:47

'Are you saying that big pharma was wrong to bring Orli onstream in the first place?'

No, because orli wouldnt be coming to market against generic orlistat

the market expectations were higher before orlistat was launched

Neither product does much

It is clear that pharmas agree, hence no deal aside from Takeda

[dunderheed] 25/8/2009 12:37

t-d - that is not the case it is certainly better than current marketed product (especially taking into account post 24155)- it is the margin by which it is better and the additional costs to bring onstream that are not a good story?
Are you saying that big pharma was wrong to bring Orli onstream in the first place?

[the_doctor] 25/8/2009 12:31

'If bloody Ceti was so damn good'

It was NEVER good.

[the_doctor] 25/8/2009 12:30

FDA reviews liver injury linking to weight loss drug orlistat
Regulators in the USA are reviewing adverse events of liver injury in patients taking the weight loss drug orlistat, marketed under prescription by Roche as Xenical and sold over the counter by GlaxoSmithKline as Alli

[dunderheed] 25/8/2009 12:18

Come on gambler gambill - get your mate to post up why 20p div. I am enthralled?!

mm - why 40% offset - is the the CT rate - how do you know what CT the 'acquiring' company pay?

If bloody Ceti was so damn good why couldn't 'team liar' sell it in the states?
Perhaps there is a clue in td's post?

[gambill] 25/8/2009 12:14

And what do we shareholders get out of it all????

[mad mike] 25/8/2009 11:11

And maybe if someone buys ceti, it would be better to buy the company, and use the £131M tax loss against their own profits, and thus offset about 40% of the cost of a ceti Phase III.

[the_doctor] 25/8/2009 09:04

Then whoever picks up ceti and whoever invests $100m developing it will make a bit of money

[gambill] 25/8/2009 08:33

Well have we all forgot Ceti if that will turn out to be a blockbuster what then??????????

[lfc4ever] 24/8/2009 18:52

mike- after arx and now this, i think i might take your presence on a bb as a contra-indication for investment! please steer clear of agu (now agnm), ar., gwp and trt!!

(that might make more sense, i suppose, if i tell you i used to post as 0238jr)

on a vaguely similar theme, silverbackalpha pitches up on the minco thread- and there, does not appear to be a total wazzock.

[mad mike] 24/8/2009 18:09

Buying companies for the tax loss, or reversing into them, is definitely a well trodden path.

It isn't in the Pharma sector, but I do recall some companies buying up several severely bust Split-Capital-Investment-Trust, just so they could use the tax losses. But that was about 5 year ago, and tax rules may have subsequently changed.

Also, the price you sell at will depend upon supply and demand. There is probably an oversupply of companies with huge tax losses currently!

However, I do recall one CEO telling me he had tried to sell a company (Aerobox) on the basis of the tax loss, through reverse engineering (I recall), but there were no takers, as all potential buyers didn't want to be associated with the company's past.

[dunderheed] 24/8/2009 16:49

Well yes and no Dr B - in my business potential tax losses are taken into account when acquiring potential assets and the economics associated with these etc. Oilexco or whatever they are called come to mind - different acquirers had differing views on the allowable tax losses.
It is not 100% guaranteed that all such acquired tax losses are offsettable (even though in the same industry) and the opinion of the company tax expert may increase the risk attached to this in the final nav calculation etc.