We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oxford Biomedica Plc | OXB | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.50 | 1.63% | 218.50 | 16:35:12 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 218.00 | 216.50 | 225.00 | 218.50 | 215.00 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOTECHNOLOGY |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 18/4/2024 09:46 by harry s truman Just a quick one on the same themeAccording to the FT (might not be exact current holding) Liontrust Investment Partners LLP were recently 8.04m shares or 8.05% holder of OXB. Yahoo today / Evening Standard yesterday :- "Money pours out of Liontrust as investors quit UK shares" So just to repeat, not an OXB problem but a market problem. What OXB have to do here is make themselves buck this trend. They can't do anything about huge investment companies occasionally selling 5% of everything they hold to meet redemptions, but what they can do is make themselves a compelling case for people who can invest (which is basically to continue to hold their current path - no speculation on news drugs and charge a big market handsomely for essential services). I'll be very interested to see what all the insiders do once the results are announced and we have that little open period. I'm assuming that NN with their guy on the board will be counted as insiders and we know they are currently awash with cash from the magic pill for troughers. |
Posted at 04/4/2024 12:57 by reddirish According to an article in last week's Economist, investors transferred over $31b in equity funding into health-care related AI stocks between 2019 and 2022. That number can only have grown massively in the past year as the AI bubble has inflated further. Is this a possible explanation for the dearth of buyers in the biotech area over the same timescale? Portfolio managers will have kept their allocations to 'health' fairly constant, but moved from one subsector into the newly exciting one. The flows will reverse once the drug development firms - which are the users of the new AI tools - begin to accelerate successful projects, and as the AI bubble deflates. When might that be? I'd give it two more years. |
Posted at 04/4/2024 11:09 by cousinit I'm not sure how much money in the market is (even loosely) anchored to fundamental value these days.The most likely attraction for adding new investors is a rapidly rising share price... |
Posted at 04/4/2024 11:09 by harry s truman As brief as I ever can be here, I honestly think that OXB is one of those shares which is too difficult for most laypeople to get their heads around.So, if you are a steelmaker or a goldminer or a telecoms company or a clothes retailer, then the market can compartmentalise you very quickly, there will be lots of analysts who understand your business really well, the investors can associate your business with what you do, and it goes on. As our current CEO says (remember, this is a 60+ year old very successful CDMO exec), he wasn't really aware of OXB until the pandemic. If that's true of an industry insider, then what OXB did (did very well, but that's sort of irrelevant) was so niche that very few people had even heard of them, let alone understood their business - until the pandemic, which even then actually gave them a "name" for doing something else other than their speciality. Up until May 2013 OXB is a biotech company. Primarily gene delivery. Very difficult to value a portfolio of research and trial drugs for such a specialised area. May 2013 until the end of 2023, OXB is this almost unique hybrid company which was biotech drug development for our own drugs + service provider for the likes of Orchard, Novartis, BMS, etc., which totalled 25 as of the interims last year. Really difficult to find another company like that to compare to (biotech research / drug discovery in gene delivery for themselves + CDMO service provider for 25+ others). In less words, there are many CDMOs to compare to and a huge number of biotech companies, but if anyone can find a gene delivery biotech company which is also a CDMO then I'll give them today's spot prize. So what do they compare to? From the end of 2023 onwards OXB is no longer biotech and has stopped the development spend on its own in house drugs, so is now a pure play CDMO which should be much easier for the market to understand. The trouble with the last point here is that the other CDMOs we can all name (Lonza, TF, Samsung, Catalent, Charles River, etc.) all have wide portfolios. By that I mean they make biologics, small molecule, tablets, anything which they can make money producing, and usually tagged onto the end of that business is a CGT (cell and gene therapy division) which does viral vectors and such (like OXB). OXB is a pure play CGT CDMO, which as some of you will remember from a recent webcast, Seb seemed to imply is only us. So yet again, albeit unintentionally, OXB might have ended up in a position where the market is looking for something to compare against and struggling. I think this is our major issue - under the radar and too difficult to understand. The pure play CGT will either be a blessing or a curse. If it works out well then the gearing will be amazing as our whole business is tied to a market which is predicted to explode and OXB themselves say they see 1,600+ potential customers. Should that market prediction go the way of the nuclear powered vacuum cleaner then obviously it wouldn't be as good, but what is the likelihood? On just one drug we provide an essential vector for, over 6,000 people have already received the cancer treatment for a disease stage which was previously untreatable. That market is here now. In the past I've mentioned many times a rough / rule of thumb sector average for CDMO of 5.5x sales as a company valuation. It's not perfect, just a ballpark, but on the "low end" £126m forecast for this year, OXB should be around £700m or 70p per share. On the high end of the forecast £134m would be as near as doesn't matter to RBC's mid 12 month target of 740p. I heard the other day that someone had now put out 770p, but I don't know who that is. This year the analysts have to start valuing us as a CDMO. The new problem (for the analysts) as I mention above, is that the sector average covers companies making everything from over the counter drugs costing a few pounds to million dollar personalised treatments. It's an average, but CGT should be weighted higher. As it stands today, with a £200m market cap OXB is trading on 1.5x this year's forecast sales. There's obviously something very wrong with the rating there. Personally I think OXB eventually ends up much more than the sector average, simply because of the speciality (and forecast need) of what they do very well. For the moment though, we remain under the radar, ill understood outside of our industry / customers, and still labelled as a pandemic stock (post pandemic). I'm hopeful that 4 weeks on Monday OXB kill that perception. It will be the first time Stuart talks about 2025. They will stress that the drug discovery business ended with the 2023 loss. The coverage of the results will be of a CDMO company with a good forecast for 2024. So, the argument against any biotech is always "jam tomorrow" (good results at the end of the next / current trial). OXB are not a biotech company any more. They are a pure play CGT CDMO and will give forecasts for this year and next. Next being record revenue which will beat the pandemic vaccine revenues which were quoted by everyone as being exceptional. I can't see them paying a dividend until the loan is repaid and the last 20% in Boston is ours. At that point then I guess it's on the cards, but if you look at Lonza then it's not a big dividend. If OXB pull in the numbers which they are projecting (over £300m by 2027) and if the multiple placed on OXB by the market reflects them being pure CGT in that market, then I don't think anyone sat on those shares would mind the lack of dividend. |
Posted at 04/4/2024 10:36 by marwalker If you looked back to the financial pages in the past you would see most stocks with P/E ratios and dividends Today there are so many stocks with little chance of a dividendI think there is a return to that earlier norm and timesAs I have said before OXB needs a prospect of divi to attract todays investors |
Posted at 03/4/2024 11:52 by steeplejack If OXB doesn’t rerate then i would suggest that going private or becoming an integral part of IMT is a possible option that management might consider.From todays Times-Chairwoman Jane Griffiths of Redx said company’s valuation did not reflect its “track record or fu- ture potential and is not conducive to raising the level of capital required for our growing clinical portfolio”. As a private company, Redx, whose chief executive is Lisa Anson, believes it can access “a broader universe of speciality investors” and, in turn, “a larger quantum of future funding”. The company said it may pursue a listing “on an alternative exchange at a future date”. Its shares, which were offered at 85p when they floated, tumbled by 64.6 per cent, or 12p, to close at 6½p. Alistair Osborne is fairly scathing in his Times editorial about the Redx decision to delist,referencing a chequered history and suggesting that its patently not in the interests of minority private client shareholders but the direction of travel for a lot of smaller companies listed on the UK exchange is pretty clear.The market simply isnt doing its job and hoping that there will be a damascene experience that will effect a swift rerating of stocks like OXB might be a tad optimistic. |
Posted at 18/3/2024 10:56 by redwing1 Hi Brucie5 - thanks for your kind words. I don't really have more to say than the seven points in my earlier post. I think Harry has a perfectly reasonable bull case for the stock and it was because I had become intrigued by the story that I looked up this thread in the first place. However, with quite a number of years under my belt as a professional investor I just wanted to temper Harry's enthusiasm a little.Stories like this are often very compelling at the start, but become much trickier in the execution phase (take a look at SRT Marine as a classic example of investors waiting years for revenue delivery!). There are also several 'covid plays' that have had to re-think their business model and where the jury is still out (EKF Diagnostics and Avacta spring to mind), so caution is required. However, it is a promising sign that management see a clear path to 35% revenue growth, so who knows. Time will tell. |
Posted at 15/2/2024 10:35 by harry s truman takeiteasy,It was me who said that (listen to the PH guy in the interims webcast and he's obviously a tad deflated that his house broker forecast and what they announced were a bit apart). If you want my guess of the day then I'd say that this news is nothing bad about anybody and it's simply to do with conferences. We know that JPM are our joint broker because it gets us invited to the biggest and most prestigious health conference for investors every year. RBC also do a health conference "RBC's Pharmaceutical CDMO & Bioprocessing Conference" in which we were given a presenting slot last year and our chiefs were interviewed in a fireside chat. This likely has much more to do with today's broker change than anything regarding PH. As far as I'm aware, PH are a small/midcap firm who specialise in what they did for us when they raised money by placing shares for the Homology deal. That is done now and I'm sure everything is amicable, it's just that JPM and RBC can do more for us regarding access to bio investors with money than PH could. I think this maybe explains the delay (in the 2024 updated guidance) and would expect RBC to lead that out now. |
Posted at 29/11/2023 21:04 by harry s truman A wise man once wrote that a watched pot never boils. Another wise man once wrote to watch the pot carefully lest it boil over. Cannibals have their own pot sayings. Probably best to leave the kettle out of this roundup of popular pot sayings else there will be marches.As I understand the situation, OXB have said by the end of the year, then towards the end of the year and then that they would update before Christmas. One of the covering brokers has said they expect it by the end of November. The list of things which could cause a delay is long, but we do know a couple of things:- 1) That IM are so keen to be part of OXB that the offer of ABL is exclusively to us and on extremely friendly terms. 2) That OXB are currently in a position of capacity constraint (due to the growing order book) and that ABL satisfies that capacity problem for new work. QED both sides want it and the terms are already agreed (we have seen them) so following due diligence then the holdup can only be regulatory / procedural, but remember this is France and they protect their worker’s rights fiercely. I’m sure it will happen soon, but tomorrow or not I don’t know. I would much prefer this not to get lost in the Christmas holiday period, but I don’t think it will go that long. Should it go that late, then in the interims OXB promised to update the analysts much more frequently next year with regard to current business and the outlook, so it’s not like it would be 6 months wait until they had another opportunity to blow their own trumpet. You two follow the company very well and along with a few other hardened souls here know both the OXB story and what their capabilities are. If only that were true of everybody in the market… Controversial point here, but there are people on the various BB threads dedicated to OXB who quite obviously don't follow OXB that well, so what hope do we have for a fair understanding and valuation from the wider market which looks at hundreds of shares in this sector? Nobody has the time to study 100s of shares in such depth. To have this perfect market where all is known and understood, then there has to be enough people out there to collectively understand what OXB can do and (more importantly) is doing. Almost all of them are just looking at sectors, comparing to other companies and assuming that one size fits all. This is where we as interested private investors have the advantage over the market, but short-term the market has much more sway - even if that short term is years. Back to the people who follow us in the market (whether paid analysts or simply thorough potential investors viewing the OXB financial statements) and if they just look at a snapshot of this year, then OXB is going to look something like this:- Company burns cash. £30m in H1 £20m in H2. Outstanding loan of $50m (£40m). Pending put/call option of minimum £20m. Cash will likely be £100 to £110m at year end. Less £40m for loan = £60m to 70m. Less £20m put/call option = £40 to £50m Remembering that OXB will have burnt £50m minimum this year, most people who simply run the figures will think they have a year of cash left and move on. So for those market professionals – or even someone who simply follows the headlines without further work – then £167m market cap probably looks right in this economy (especially if they subscribe to the Numis view from the recent Times article that OXB are in hopes and dreams). I like to think that a few of us here know a different story. That in our world there is this company which next year is £30m more efficient, which is due money from IM (euro 20m share subscription post ABL completion), which is due money for its remaining Orchard shares, which is pulling in more work than it currently has capacity to do and is achieving that during a time of meagre pickings for the sector – and - (most importantly) will finally next year make up for the hangover of us both concentrating on covid vaccine production and the shortfall of our covid earnings post covid. I’m sure you all remember this from the time, but in 2021 (peak covid) 87% of our bioprocessing revenues were from AZ. If you want the figures then £128.4m with £111.7m of that from AZ. As we should all know (really we should all know this as investors in this field) clinical trials on serious diseases have to have reserved A&E beds on standby in hospitals. Where were those free beds during covid? So hopefully for reasons we all understood (i.e. the rest of the biotech world on hold) we were doing very little of anything else during covid other than making that vaccine, and whilst post covid, some of that pre-covid work came back quickly (I think we have lost 2 who are now struggling in business) it was explained to us in the interims that OXB had no effective worldwide sales team capable of filling that large gap left by the loss of the much bigger AZ fraction. This was famously referred to in that Times article headline which read “Oxford Biomedica ‘has big gap to fill’ after vaccine fall”. Back to this year and for us who actually follow the detail of OXB here, then that “disappointing Stuart said he thought £90m revenue for this full year. So £40m short of our peak covid year revenues of £128.1m in 2022 and £128.4m in 2021 but compare it to non-covid revenues of £47.3m in 2019 or £40.5m in 2018 and £90m is pretty good really isn’t it? “But the loss” I hear someone shout from the back. Yes, we will make a loss, but £10m of that loss is the cost of spending £30m less next year – the year in which Stuart says he expects to breakeven a year earlier than previously targeted. Stuart told us in his JPM speech right at the very beginning of this year that there were (post covid) costs which they had to address this year. That is now done. We’ve since learned that they had signed a tremendous amount of work (£110m up until mid-September) with Seb saying in the interims presentation that he was expecting much more signed before the beginning of Q1 next year. That amount of work is “the gap” (which the Times headline highlighted) filled. We just need to wait for the market to catch up with these figures. The current market value / market perception is of a company which has lost a huge contract and burns £50m+ per year. The market won’t look any deeper until OXB proves them wrong. Hopefully soon. Now back to my ill kept promise of waiting to see what Stuart says... |
Posted at 24/7/2023 22:15 by philh75 The impact of a company providing fewer updates via Regulatory News Service (RNS) on its share price growth when significant news hits can vary depending on several factors. Here are a few considerations:1. Information Asymmetry: When a company provides fewer updates, there may be more information asymmetry among investors. As a result, when significant news is released, it could lead to a more substantial impact on the share price as investors may not have fully priced in the new information. 2. Market Sentiment: The overall market sentiment and investor perception of the company's performance and prospects play a crucial role. If the company is already viewed positively by the market, significant news might amplify positive sentiment and result in higher share price growth. Conversely, if the company is under scrutiny or faces negative sentiment, big news may exacerbate the impact on share price in either direction. 3. Nature of the News: The nature of the news itself is critical. Positive news, such as better-than-expected earnings, a major product launch, or a strategic partnership, could drive share price growth significantly. Conversely, negative news, like financial losses or regulatory issues, might lead to a significant decline in the share price. 4. Market Conditions: Overall market conditions and macroeconomic factors can influence how news impacts share prices. During times of market volatility, even significant news might not lead to a proportional impact on share price growth. In summary, providing fewer updates via RNS can potentially lead to greater impact in share price growth when big news hits, especially if there is information asymmetry and the news is perceived as highly significant by investors. However, share price movement is influenced by a multitude of complex factors, and it's challenging to predict precise outcomes. Investors should consider the broader context, company fundamentals, and market sentiment when assessing the potential impact of news on share prices. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
