Oxford Biomedica Investors - OXB

Oxford Biomedica Investors - OXB

Best deals to access real time data!
Level 2 Basic
Monthly Subscription
for only
Monthly Subscription
for only
UK/US Silver
Monthly Subscription
for only
VAT not included
Stock Name Stock Symbol Market Stock Type Stock ISIN Stock Description
Oxford Biomedica Plc OXB London Ordinary Share GB00BDFBVT43 ORD 50P
  Price Change Price Change % Stock Price Last Trade
12.00 1.15% 1,054.00 16:29:59
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
1,042.00 1,020.00 1,060.00 1,054.00 1,042.00
more quote information »
Industry Sector

Top Investor Posts

gigabit: #13175 You are quite right about 'profits in the future'. That is fine for enthusiasts like those of us on this board but the share price is driven by the market and we are a miniscule part of that. A lot of investors, especially pension funds and the like, need income and will invest in companies delivering dividends. As has been pointed out OXB will not do that in the next few years (and it is the bottom line profit or loss that determines that not EBITDA) so that excludes those investors from buying. That leaves those interested in short term capital gain and us, the long term holders. For short termers a volatile share price is what they want so they can move in and out. We have two choices, sit on our hands or replicate their strategy. I suspect most of us prefer the first option.
harry s truman: (from the link posted by trovax) The City must back Sunak’s vision for the stock market Peter Harrison Sunday April 11 2021, 12.01am The relationship between the stock market and the economy is fundamental to any nation’s wealth. Without the effective channelling of capital to the best businesses, all suffer. For decades, London has been a world-leading financial hub, but now its future is less certain. First, consider an example of its success. Exactly 20 years ago, a nascent biotech firm listed on the London Stock Exchange, raising £35 million. It was spun out from Oxford University. The founders, Alan and Susan Kingsman, had earlier secured a cash injection by floating on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in 1996. Two decades later, Oxford BioMedica is helping to produce AZD1222, the first vaccine in the battle against Covid-19. Now a member of the FTSE 250, it is one of dozens of companies thriving in the Oxford-Cambridge-London biotech “Golden Triangle”. Its laboratories and factories, dotted around Oxford, usually focus on developing gene and cell therapies, and when it has needed money to fund its future, London’s markets have served it well. At the start of the century, London began to challenge the supremacy of New York and Hong Kong. I remember the frenzied activity of 2007, which marked London’s most successful year for floats. However, there is a danger that its zenith is now behind us. I have become increasingly concerned that without reform, London faces slow decline at a time when Amsterdam and other markets are in the ascendancy. In contrast to Oxford BioMedica’s story, Immunocore, another home-grown British biotech firm based near Oxford, signalled in January that it would list on Nasdaq, not in London. This is not a new trend. GW Pharmaceuticals moved from AIM to Nasdaq in 2016. A further stark comparison can be observed with the growth of Spacs, or special-purpose acquisition companies. Held up as a faster and less volatile route to joining the market, they raise money first, with the intention of buying an operating business later. Our research shows that between 2003 and 2019, an average of 17 Spacs a year floated in New York. Last year, the number exploded to 248. In 2021, that record has already been broken. Meanwhile, the Spac market on this side of the pond has been stagnant. Nearly £64 billion was raised through Spacs in the US last year, according to data firm Dealogic. In the UK, the figure was just £30 million. What needs to change? The Lord Hill review offers a way forward. Lord (Jonathan) Hill recommends a loosening of Spac regulations, among a range of other measures. A much-needed reform to allow companies with dual-class share structures the opportunity of FTSE 100 status has also been suggested. Under current rules, companies with dual voting rights have access to only a “standard̶1; listing as opposed to “premium”;, missing out on entry to the Footsie and the benefits it brings: for one, passive funds are forced to buy their shares. Dual-class share structures, permitted in New York and Frankfurt, help owners of newly listed companies to ward off hostile takeovers. In an age of globalised markets, why should it matter where companies list? The danger is that entrepreneurialism and expertise quietly slip abroad, a process that is already under way. In contrast, by keeping all parts of the development chain on these shores, we nurture industries that can share knowledge and where the most skilled workers can move with ease between fast-growth companies. There is also a knock-on effect for industries that have thrived as part of the City’s ecosystem, from legal firms to hotels. But perhaps the greatest implication is one that should be considered by British pension savers. Each year, they have become ever more exposed to the fortunes of old-economy stocks that dominate the FTSE 100. UK pensions retain a lingering “home bias” and therefore have been weighted toward banks and carbon-reliant sectors, such as oil and mining. This alone should be enough reason for change. Some of our peers in the fund management industry have questioned whether they can execute their stewardship duties with looser rules. The suggested changes are not radical. They merely keep us in the pack. For example, Hill has suggested reducing free-float requirements, allowing the minimum proportion of a company’s shares in public hands to be 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent. The UK’s coalition government mooted this idea nearly a decade ago. The subsequent performance gap tells the story that follows. New York’s S&P 500 returned almost 268 per cent in the ten years to the end of 2020. The FTSE 100 managed just 43 per cent. While this may be due to a range of reasons, a failure to be the go-to market for technology entrepreneurs has been one of the more significant ones. As for the loosening of rules on Spacs, this is where good fund management companies should come into their own. Splitting the wheat from the chaff is our raison d’etre. And London, in particular, is a world leader in pricing risk, when given the chance to do so. It is not all gloom. I take heart from Oxford Nanopore, a biotech company, announcing its intention to float in London. But this shouldn’t be an isolated reason for celebration; it should be commonplace and a natural choice. We should heed the warning of Jason Kingdon, chief executive of London-listed Blue Prism Group. He suggested that UK shareholders did not have a deep enough knowledge of his company’s sector, robotic process automation. He believes the company would be worth up to eight times more if it were quoted on Nasdaq. British financial markets, his comments suggest, are stifling growth. Deliveroo’s lacklustre listing has been used to make this point. Individual and institutional investors alike suffered immediate losses. I hope that future float hopefuls do not write off London just because of the failure of one listing where the issues were particular to that company. For our part, it was valuation that persuaded us not to invest. The bigger picture is that we are at a crossroads. By adopting Hill’s proposals, we steer a different course for London, and a more prosperous path for the UK’s technology industries. This is critical in the post-Brexit world. Rishi Sunak said the UK was “one of the best places in the world to start, grow and list a business”. Making these changes could, in time, make it the best. Peter Harrison is group chief executive of Schroders
harry s truman: Rob, Questor: want to double your money in the stock market in a week? This is how to do it Questor share tips: we wouldn’t normally set out to try but our Fantasy Fund Manager competition offers readers a risk-free opportunity By Richard Evans 2 April 2021 • 5:00am This column normally believes in long-term investing – let’s say over five years or more – so it’s a drastic change of course to seek to double our money in a week. Rest assured that we will go back to “get rich slow” next week, but today we aim to help readers win one of the new weekly prizes in our Fantasy Fund Manager competition, the latest round of which begins next Tuesday. In this third contest in the series we have increased the weekly prizes very significantly from £100 to £1,000 so there is now a strong incentive for readers to try their hand at this alternative, quick-fire approach to making money on shares. Questor must stress that we would only ever discuss such short-term speculation (it cannot be called investing) in the context of a competition such as this and not when your own real money is on the line. Perhaps the real benefit of this exercise will be as a demonstration, if any were needed, of the near impossibility of making large gains in short periods with any kind of reliability on the stock market. In the long term, a rational analysis of a company’s strengths will tend to win, but over short periods the benefits of such evidence-based approaches are swamped by the effects of sentiment. Investors, even professional ones, are human beings and their actions are affected by what is going on around them and by what others do, even if in the cold light of day nothing has changed at the company in question. So with all those caveats on the table let’s try to answer that question: if we want to double our money in a week in the stock market, what should we do? Step one: avoid the FTSE 100. On the whole the bigger you are the more stable you are and the less scope there is for a single event to move your share price materially. In fact, ideally we need to be exploring the lower reaches of the market: the FTSE Small Cap, Fledgling or Aim indices. Among some of the tiny companies here there really would be a chance of finding stocks that could double in a week. Unfortunately those options are not open to contestants because Fantasy Fund Manager is restricted to the FTSE 350, which is the combination of the FTSE 100 and the FTSE 250, the next 250 largest companies by market value after the blue-chip index. So for the purposes of the competition we should seek our big winners at the smaller end of the FTSE 250. Now let’s think about which sectors are most likely to be home to companies with the potential for game-changing announcements that could send their shares soaring. The ones that spring to mind are miners, oil explorers and drugs companies. Here a lot can hinge on the success or otherwise of a single project: a mine, an oil well or a treatment for a disease. A big discovery of easily recovered gold or oil, or the success of the trials of a new drug, can transform a company’s prospects and its share price. Among smaller stocks it is not uncommon to see a share price double as soon as a positive announcement is published. The opposite frequently happens too of course, which makes such stocks dangerous when you invest real money. In our contest, however, you have the chance to win a decent sum if good news is heard and no risk of losing anything if the tidings are bad. Here are a few of the names in these sectors to be found at the smaller end of the FTSE 250. Diversified Gas & Oil and Energean are two oil explorers, Petropavlovsk, Hochschild Mining and Centamin are miners and PureTech Health, Oxford Biomedica and Indivior are healthcare companies. A look at their share price graphs shows that all have been volatile over the past year or so and volatility in this instance is of course precisely what we seek, protected as we are from real financial consequences from share price falls but in a position to benefit from rises. Questor suggests that readers follow some of these stocks. One approach would be to buy the shares of any that are closer to the bottom than the top of their recent trading ranges in the hope that any renewed volatility goes in our favour. Good luck – and remember to invest any winnings in stocks tipped (for real) here!
dominiccummings: #12600 "We have (mostly) lauded Mr Dawson for the decision to move to batch contract manufacturing after the failure of Trovax etc, It does look though that it was the large investors who pushed him in that direction." A bit of 'journalistic licence' there. The manufacturing plant was bought when Prof Kingsman was still here, and he approved of the strategy (he told me personally). It was available, and cheap. There may have been some interaction with Novartis at early stages at that point, I don't know. What I DO know is that the Trovax timing and other opportunities they wished to progress at that time were stymied by the lack of manufacturing slots to produce trial material. Vulpes were already a big investor, and maybe supported the move quite strongly in order that they could progress faster. However, the way that it is pitched in the article is simply 'changing history', and for what it is worth JD did push ahead at a difficult time and achieve the Novartis business.
the lockkeeper: We have (mostly) lauded Mr Dawson for the decision to move to batch contract manufacturing after the failure of Trovax etc, It does look though that it was the large investors who pushed him in that direction. In retrospect the right decision.OXB is doing well ATM as it should and deserves to do. The news that the improved balance sheet will allow it to put more R&D spend into its own, as well as products intended for out licensing does in my humble opinion,put us back on track to be a drug developer and manufacturer, watch that balance sheet soar now they have the means to do that again.
marcusl2: Excellent. Pity we couldn`t get that on the news! Thanks PH and Harry. That knowledge should allow Oxford Biomedica to work with other partners using the adenovirus technology it has now perfected. “There was a massive, massive push from some of our larger investors, originally probably four or five years ago, to make sure we had a [profit and loss] that looked more like it was balanced and we were cash flow self-sufficient,R21; said Dawson. Bell suggested Oxford Biomedica may have benefited from listing on the Nasdaq, “We believe long-term BMS will be as important to us as Novartis has been,” he added.
harry s truman: https://www.ft.com/content/d8748c7a-e4c1-4b4b-9980-7d8571a7f4bf The UK biotech racing to cash in on Covid vaccine success Oxford Biomedica plans to use earnings from AstraZeneca jab to boost own medicines business Sarah Neville in London 6 HOURS AGO The coronavirus pandemic was in its early stages, and a successful vaccine against the disease still a distant hope, when Oxford’s Jenner Institute came calling on Oxford Biomedica. The UK biotech group had been expecting to spend the year expanding its roster of partners in cell and gene therapy. Instead, it was enlisted by Oxford’s vaccine research unit to make its nascent coronavirus inoculation and, even as it continued with other work, was propelled to the centre of one of the biggest global initiatives for taming the pandemic. John Dawson, chief executive, recalled the board discussion about whether the company should shoulder the additional responsibility: “We decided we would want to play a part for the benefit of mankind, but we wouldn’t let our core business suffer in the slightest,” he said. Now Oxford Biomedica — which listed on the main London Stock Exchange 20 years ago — is at an inflection point. It is looking to reinvest part of the money it has earned from the vaccine in its own portfolio of medicines. But it must convince investors long content with the steady returns generated through its core contract manufacturing business that bringing pioneering drugs to market can produce even greater benefits. The biotech’s own R&D has taken a back seat since 2013, when it struck a lucrative contract with Novartis to manufacture the Swiss pharma group’s breakthrough gene therapy for blood cancer, Kymriah. The process depended on Oxford Biomedica’s LentiVector, a proprietary platform for delivering genes to modify the body’s own cells to treat or cure a disease — an invention that has transformed the company’s fortunes. “There was a massive, massive push from some of our larger investors, originally probably four or five years ago, to make sure we had a [profit and loss] that looked more like it was balanced and we were cash flow self-sufficient,” said Dawson. “We got to that point by working on the [contract development and manufacturing organisation] business.” However, Oxford Biomedica’s Covid-19 vaccine success, which has contributed to a rise of more than a fifth in its share price in the past six months, has helped to create the financial cushion needed to support its own portfolio alongside its manufacturing contracts. A Parkinson’s drug, licensed to US company Sio in 2018, has underlined the potential of this dual approach. The company secured a relatively modest $30m immediately with a further $850m in prospect if the medicine performed as hoped. If it had already had data from phase 1 and two human clinical trials, it could have reaped $100m upfront, with potential for an additional $1.5bn as well as “a bigger royalty because there is less risk in it”, argued Dawson. The company has a further five products in the pipeline, all making use of the LentiVector platform, the company said. Alistair Campbell, an analyst with Liberum who follows Oxford Biomedica, said the group was trying to maintain “an interesting balance . . . You will have shareholders who will prefer the less risky [contract manufacturing] side of the business and others who will be more excited by reinvesting in the pipeline.” This choice underlined the scale of the opportunity, he suggested: “It’s a good problem to have.” Dashed hopes to commercial success Founded in 1995 by two Oxford professors, husband and wife Alan and Susan Kingsman, whose original ambition was to develop gene therapy treatments for cancer, Oxford Biomedica was a spin out from the university’s department of biochemistry. John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford and the architect of the UK government’s life sciences strategy, said the company “is a bit of a jewel in the midsize biotech space in the UK because its experience in making lentiviruses is nothing short of spectacular”. However, as a public company, its success in manufacturing production meant it has been valued by analysts on its expected future cash flows rather than its innovation. While the UK biotech sector is, on many measures, riding high — 2020 was the best year for investments ever recorded, according to the BioIndustry Association — Bell suggested Oxford Biomedica may have benefited from listing on the Nasdaq, where investors can be more willing to tolerate sustained losses in pursuit of higher rewards, or remaining private for longer. Dawson, who took the helm in 2008, recalled “very dark days back in the early 2010s . . . where we were very short on cash. I was worrying about paying the bills in three months’ time, [our] share price was depressed and the world knew we needed money, so our price went down.” He said the company was working on other opportunities with Novartis and also with Bristol-Myers Squibb. “We believe long-term BMS will be as important to us as Novartis has been,” he added. Race to the vaccine Oxford Biomedica’s call on the Covid-19 vaccine came at a fortunate time. The company had recently constructed a new manufacturing facility, the Oxbox, a stone’s throw from the lab where vaccinologist Sarah Gilbert and her colleagues were carrying out their research on a Covid-19 jab. Still, the company had to master a complicated new manufacturing process, shifting “heaven and earth” to get it up and running in just six months, according to Dawson. “We didn’t know whether we could do it as quick as we have done it but, actually, by a massive effort by many people and working throughout Christmas, we have got to a place where we’re successful in making this and it is being shipped to patients as we speak,” he added. Its position as one of the key — and, according to some insiders, among the most productive — manufacturing plants making the Covid-19 vaccine for AstraZeneca has opened up further opportunities. The process involved developing an “adenovector” to carry the Sars-Cov-2 spike protein gene into host cells, causing the immune system to produce antibodies that target the protein. Each batch takes between four and six weeks to make. (In contrast people familiar with the process in Europe suggested that earlier this year factories there were taking about 55 days.) “You start with a very few cells and then grow them in a shaker flask, and then you move it to bigger and bigger bioreactors,” said Catherine Isted, head of corporate development and investor relations. “So, it is a biological process . . . these cells are living things, you need to look after them.” That knowledge should allow Oxford Biomedica to work with other partners using the adenovirus technology it has now perfected. In the past year the biotech has hired more than 100 staff, “the vast majority directly or indirectly vaccine-related”, Isted added. Its 18-month contract with AstraZeneca is worth more than £50m. Dawson added: “We don’t make our normal margins on this work. It is a very good deal for Oxford Biomedica but it is not quite as attractive as we’d normally do but we’re . . . trying to play our part in making sure this pandemic gets to a point where it becomes an epidemic and, from there, it gets completely controlled”. Bell said the biotech group has yet to receive its full measure of acclaim. “They’re a bit of a star performer in this space and not applauded in the way that they should be. They’ve been a really crucial strategic asset for the UK in terms of making the quantities (of vaccine) we need for the population.” As the UK seeks to build an even bigger presence in cell and gene therapy, and to make the technology more widely accessible, Oxford Biomedica is set to come into its own, he said. Noting its expertise in manufacturing and regulation, and a capacity for innovation that has yet to be fully tapped, he added: “It should be in a very sweet spot to take advantage of that.”
gareth jones: A lot to look forward to at the moment! Vaccination rollout going very well. AZN vaccine is holding up well despite a few detractors and the likes of WHO have thrown their support behind it. AZN working on Autumn revised jab for rollout and OXB must be involved (?) as VMIC will not be operational in time. We are now in the Year of the OX(B) as pointed out earlier. OXB Notice of Preliminary Results must be released soon and will bring in some interest and short term investors and punters looking for a good run up to the results. Possible large institutional investors in the background? The promise of more deals in the pipeline hanging over from before Christmas. Six Nations rugby underway which commences in the bleak mid Winter (literally for many at the moment)and culminates in the likes of Paris in the Spring. The futures bright?
trovax: The Vitruvian Investment Partnership IV fund was launched the middle of last year, quickly raising a capped fund of 4 Billion Euros. LinkedIn - HTTPs://www.linkedin.com/company/vitruvian-partners-llp “From our fourth fund (VIP IV) of €4.0 billion, we invest €30m-€350m+ in high growth, dynamic situation buyouts and growth capital investments” The £18Million trade (approx 20M Euros) they completed on Friday should mean that they still have at least another million shares to purchase to get to the level of 30M Euros. I hope they invest a lot more - I’m intrigued what their plans would be - it doesn’t seem they are sit back / hands off investors
fp optimist: Thanks Marcus for the clarification - once politics gets into the frame the world goes mad. Despite some sharp words about who gets what supply, Covid nationalism doesn't help anyone. Good to see co-operation and that a sound supply chain was in-place. Also reassuring is that Kate Bingham and her team still appear to be performing brilliantly! Problem for an investor is that, while we expect Astra Zeneca to try to scapegoat others (manufacturers, governments whatever), we investors still expect some reassurances on the Oxford Biomedica contribution. It's a frenzied environment, where so far my favourite authority in this field - Eirian Jane Prosser, in Banbury Cake, 27th January 2021, just refers to Oxford as one of three AZ production sites in the UK. It would help if she said a bit more like: "you know, the stuff comes from the new building round by the empty football ground.". Anyway, in the real world, I got my Astra Zeneca vaccine yesterday, about 24 hours after receipt of a letter. I am still feeling really good about that, although I'm well into Macron's danger zone!
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
Oxford Bio..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

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

P: V: D:20210417 18:33:10