hxxps://www.msn.com/en-us/health/weightloss/novo-nordisk-posts-net-profit-beat-as-wegovy-sales-jump-107-in-fourth-quarter/ar-AA1yrayB
only posting this as this firm gets so much airplay here .... |
JPMC gone after 12 months as Joint Corporate Broker and back to Jefferies working alongside RBC? Fed up with JPMC or had they served their purpose? Interesting? Perplexing? |
 You've got to expect that Cousin and I would have thought it's unrelated to our current situation.
We had 35 partners last time OXB updated and a lot of those partners are multiple experimental lines (including CARGO, which wasn't a single product agreement), but (but, but, but) the odds of getting an early stage drug approved are slim and lots of our partners are chasing the same disease indication target from different directions anyway.
If 25% of our 35 get one of their multiple lines eventually approved then that will have been a fantastic result for us and we will all be very happy (assuming we still own OXB by then).
The big plus of current OXB is that shareholder expectations were on CARGO not us, as we will get paid on delivery of a to spec product whether their trials later show durable responses or not.
My tip for anyone watching trials would be to forget the early trials (nice indication but doesn't prove anything) and concentrate on what is in very late stage with a registration trial, which for OXB was 4 partners as of last September. Those are all better than 50% in our favour so it would be pretty unlucky for none of them to pass review. If 4 pass review then OXB will treble its commercial supply side of the business, which of course is ongoing rather than for a fixed amount of trial material.
We have to expect failure though - that is part of the game - and if you remember, one of the reasons they wanted the KPI table rather than the pipeline page is that it's much more reflective of what OXB have.
I'm not sure how clear that is, but if you notify every win and it's say 8 in 6 months, then that's great and keeps us all happy, but if 3 were lost to trial failure or business decision over the same period then updating the KPI table by 5 programmes is a better way to track progress. |
I was just trying to catch up on news and noticed that Cargo Therapeutics have pulled their Phase 2 trial that I believe we were producing the vector for.
They have plenty of cash, so shouldn't be any issue with payment for the work to date, but not likely to get more. Another trial was on the slate but a strategic review has now been initiated. |
I've nothing new to add SJ, but I think we all agree that if the FY results (likely end of April) are not going to be acceptably close to what they have guided and later revised upwards, then they have to tell the market almost as soon as it becomes clear to them - and they haven't.
Personally I'm pretty convinced that OXB is in a closed period and that the insiders are embargoed from buying for some reason which is unknown to us, and possibly unknown to most of them too.
All the time I've held OXB (cue Hovis advert theme tune) the OXB team have been pretty regular buyers. Not all of them following each results / big news, but many of them and I would say that even on quiet years someone always gave a little signal of commitment. Then came Roch (who is quite obviously a very wealthy man, as I guess we could expect after 15 years as CEO of a big pharma company) and I can't ever remember any insider employee buying like Roch.
Look at this link and it's 15 months since a single one of them bought - and I can't believe that is because they all think that the company recovering from the post covid slump is the time to stop.
So I think it's because they can't - or as Frank might say when asked for permission, "Non" - and I don't think he is obliged to tell them why.
Either a mad coincidence affecting them all then (I just can't believe Roch is skint) or something is preventing the open periods being open for 15 months now.
As I have noted in the Novo hypothesis, exhibit "a" is the fact that this 15 months fits quite nicely with Novo H making a public move on Catalent a year ago tomorrow.
Could it be related? I think yes, but it could also be something else un-guessable too - and if they buy again after the results in April then I will assume the closed period is over without us ever discovering what it was for. |
Then isn't it easiest to just say so? You know, Occam's razor?
If not, maybe our more lurid projections may be the case.
(Or even Novo hadn't thought about it, but it sounds a great proposition, "perhaps we should do it?") ;-) |
“…they don't seem to want to blow their own trumpet.”
Well,Harry,that̵7;s the kindly way of describing the deafening silence that has characterised OXB’s investor relations in recent months.The share price seems reluctant to get out of bed in the morning.The MMs are notably slow at freshening up the spread.Yet,’it is what it is’as folk like to say nowadays suggesting they are resigned to accepting all manner of ills.We’ll get an update within the next month providing an opportunity perhaps to address the more imaginative explanations for the relative disinterest shown by shareholders and insiders alike.Reading the market tea leaves,my bet is that the company is doing quite nicely and they’re getting on with the job. |
takeiteasy,
Honestly no idea and I think I'd struggle to come up with a scenario linking fashion to OXB - even though we do have French style at the top these days.
Swerving back on topic and I don't think any of the sideshow issues (recessions, interest rates, wars, tariffs) would make much of a difference to our prospects if OXB deliver on what they have guided many times. As you know it's actually better than that, as they haven't just maintained that guidance - they have actually increased forecasts whilst sourpusses like Numis have publicly doubted that they can deliver on the original.
But here we are in the hands of OXB and at the moment they don't seem to want to blow their own trumpet.
The reasons? Well we just don't know. This morning over the space of 2 seconds we had 25 trades marked "SINT". That's not normal for OXB historically (masses of SINT trades) but it is of late.
Is it connected to OXB insiders not buying for a long time now and the apparent reluctance of Frank to be the same fount of news which he was when he took over the job? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was.
The watched pot never boils though and we just have to wait and see.
On the upside, OXB is in a sector which traditionally rides recessions quite well and the maintained guidance for this year is great. |
Why pick on poor old Illumina Harry - any thoughts...
I see the tariffs for Canada/Mexico put on hold for a month - we seem to be in an information war to hurtle the markets up and down like a yo-yo for the benefits of the hedge funds no doubt. |
I'd also add to that the point that if he does block WuXi with the biosecure act, then there are capacity constraints here to be considered for specific medicines / medical products - would he really deprive sick patients in the US by increasing the cost of already expensive medicine? Would medicine even be included in tariffs?
Let's see what happens as we all know Don's playbook by now which is to propose something shocking before horse-trading down to what he actually wants. |
If we produce US bound vector in our US sites then there is no tariff? |
What is the take on DT here - pharma in cross hairs for future tariffs, but UK arguing that they are an exception from EU and should be exempted. Can anything be read either way at this point... |
We aren't. Casgevy uses a non-viral delivery method. |
I guess if OXB are commenting on this on LinkedIn then they must have been involved. sickle cell gene therapy to be made available on the NHS. Vertex pharmaceuticals. |
I'm sure it does, they aren't mutually exclusive - OXB can also help make their client's existing therapies more efficiently. As we have seen they have won new late stage business very recently. |
Doesn't this also come from Catalent's blurb?
"Catalent offers an optimized process to help clients make their existing AAV therapies more efficiently." |
axial,
No offence here (so don't take any) but you're arguing something quite technical here with a bit of passion after asking if Catalent's AAV cell lines are something akin to what OXB has with LentiVector (not a good foundation).
I remain convinced that if Catalent had their own vectors for sale then we would know their names and there would be sales brochures.
If you read their website they never say they have a vector, they say that they have producer cell lines of various vector types, with words about what they can do for your vector.
I'm far from an expert on this but I think I understand that a producer line is where you start with the empty vector (neutered virus parts) then package it around the genetic material you want to deliver (the packaging line) to end up with filtered out "producer cells" which they can then feed and multiply on in a stirred bioreactor.
UpTempo looks like their producer line, where the big claim is how they can do that quicker (which I'm sure is true, but quicker than what?).
If you want to look at it from the other end, then Catalent are a manufacturing partner for Sarepta Therapeutics (good company / approved product). Sarepta use a Dyno Therapeutics AAV.
Repeating that I'm not an expert here (and fast approaching the point of being past caring) I'd suggest that Catalent's UpTempo is used to package Sarepta's genetic material into Dyno's AAV and obviously does this proficiently (as the sales for that treatment would seem to prove). It doesn't prove that Sarepta are using Catalent's AAV vector (which may or may not exist).
I'm done with this one now if it's ok. |
Sorry but that's just not correct:
"Catalent now offers a proprietary high-yielding AAV cell-line along with our ready to use proprietary off-the-shelf vectors for a one-stop integrated platform, still within the 9 months from plasmid to drug product." |
Catalent’s UpTempo™ AAV Platform is a process development and manufacturing platform designed to help accelerate the production of AAV-based gene therapies. However, it’s important to distinguish what it actually offers versus what OXB’s proprietary AAV platform brings to the table.
What is UpTempo™ AAV?
• Launched in 2021, UpTempo™ AAV is not a proprietary viral vector but rather a platform to optimize AAV manufacturing.
• It focuses on improving speed, yield, and consistency in AAV production for clients who already have their own AAV constructs.
• It does not provide a vector design service or proprietary AAV capsid technology—it’s just a more efficient way to manufacture AAV vectors that clients bring to Catalent.
How Does This Compare to OXB’s AAV Offering?
1. OXB Owns a Proprietary AAV Platform
• OXB’s AAV platform (acquired via Homology Medicines in 2023) is an in-house developed system for designing and optimizing AAV vectors, not just for manufacturing.
• OXB can provide clients with proprietary capsids and vector constructs, whereas Catalent’s UpTempo™ AAV platform requires clients to bring their own vectors.
2. OXB’s AAV System is More Than Just Manufacturing
• OXB can design, develop, and manufacture AAV therapies from scratch.
• Catalent only offers an optimized process to help clients make their existing AAV therapies more efficiently.
3. UpTempo™ AAV is a Competitive Manufacturing Tool, Not a Proprietary Platform
• Catalent’s platform is useful for companies needing AAV production, but it does not offer a proprietary vector solution like OXB.
• If Catalent wants to be a fully integrated AAV service provider, it would need OXB’s AAV platform to complement UpTempo™.
Strategic Implications for Novo Holdings & OXB
If Novo Holdings wants Catalent to be a leading CDMO in cell and gene therapy, it needs more than just manufacturing capability—it needs proprietary vector technology.
OXB’s AAV platform could be the missing piece for Catalent’s UpTempo™ AAV.
• Pairing UpTempo™ AAV with OXB’s vector expertise would create a full-service AAV offering, making Catalent far more competitive against Lonza and Thermo Fisher.
This is yet another reason why Novo Holdings acquiring OXB makes strategic sense—it would allow them to fully own the value chain from vector development to commercial manufacturing rather than just offering contract AAV production. |
More like the AAV product we bought in the Boston plant. |
Take a look at their UpTempo AAV platform. Does this not seem to to you something akin to LentiVector? |
Axial,
No worries but I think that was Catalent building / growing their cell therapy division by buying a cell and gene therapy CDMO.
My point about being able to make something as opposed to offering their own products still applies.
There is the possibility here that they have something hidden, but why?
As I mentioned above and in previous posts, I have looked for where Catalent offer their own vectors. I would expect at least an AAV with a snappy name and something telling you proudly the payload in kB and the list of who already uses it. Really that would normally be front page stuff but I can find no reference. |
Thanks for clarifying.
I know OXB doesn't manufacture the CAR-T, my question was more about Catalent's viral vector biz. Wasn't the rationale for the Paragon Bioservices deal (and other tuck in acquisitions) to buy in that expertise and those platforms? Paragon was doing about 200mm in revenue at the time of acquisition and was founded in 1990 so in theory they should be able to offer the full suite of services. Granted, their expertise seems to be tilted towards AAV rather than lenti. |
Axial,
Dom has sort of trumped me with a one-liner here, but my full speech (with gestures) would be something like this:-
First (and to clarify) I don't remember referring to any of Catalent as half baked and if I did then let me take that back, they were the world's number 3 CDMO and that just doesn't happen by accident.
What they did experience was a torrid time post covid and were struggling - as evidenced by their financials, share price and also little clues like the purchase of the large facility in Oxford from HMG which they then did nothing with. So all was plainly not well until Novo Holdings rode in with promises of big spending post purchase, which likely saved a lot of jobs, but one of the crown jewels of Catalent (the 3 pen injectable fill / finish factories in Italy, Belgium and America employing more than 3,000 people in total) has already gone to Novo Nordisk and so isn't part of Novo Holdings' "new" Catalent anymore.
The part of the remainder of Catalent which is of interest to us is their cell therapy division www.biologics.catalent.com/cell-therapy/
I've spent quite a bit of time on that page in the past and I've seen plenty of references to how Catalent can manufacture (say) your AAV for you (which is what I would expect with a good CDMO) what I haven't seen is them offering you their vectors to use if you haven't already got one of your own.
I don't want to patronise you by stating the obvious, so apologies if you already know this, but to give you an example of what I'm trying to say, OXB don't manufacture CAR-T drugs and never have. They manufacture the lentiviral vector (I would say best in the world, but there are alternatives) which programmes the T-Cell as part of the CAR-T manufacturing process done by someone else (like Catalent).
If you think about it, OXB with 35 partners last time they updated, 41% of those LentiVector at the last full results, lion's share of the LentiVector use is on CAR-T and some of our 35 partners are running multiple parallel streams. I think OXB have 7 production suites in the UK. Does that make sense of why we can't (and don't) manufacture CAR-T for our partners? What we do is sell them then build to order the bespoke critical part which has taken 25 years to develop.
When IM joined OXB (at not insignificant cost) it was to be a part of OXB's vectors because they knew they could never catch up in competition. They couldn't beat us and so they joined us.
Most of the really big CDMO companies have spent decades becoming very good at manufacturing other people's conventional drugs for them. Cell therapy is relatively new and tends to be a small side division. Generally they don't have viral vectors of their own to sell (unless they have bought one in) because there isn't time for them to have developed them. They could certainly offer to manufacture one for you, but it would almost certainly be someone else's and would you want to be the person signing for that when you could have OXB who were first in man and first commercially approved for LentiVector? For peace of mind I know where my money would be going.
So this is my point really, that someone in Novo H has twigged that merging OXB with Catalent's cell therapy division gives this one stop show where someone like (any existing OXB customer / partner) instead of buying a vector from us and then looking for a CAR-T manufacturer, could get everything from conception, vector design, process development, vector production, CAR-T manufacture (or whatever the drug type is) all with one contract under one roof. Who would head that? They could do a lot worse for experience in this field than Frank.
Anyway, just my thoughts, time will tell, we will see, etc. I think it's maybe time now to just leave this to ride and see what happens. |
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
Hot Features
Premium
