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. |
Jez,
Honestly, I'm fine with your opposing view. Yes I have a lot of OXB baggage (I've followed for an awfully long time), but that doesn't make me automatically correct and I have called it wrong in the past.
Just throwing in some random thoughts here, I would question how many people read this BB (and I suspect it's not that many).
I'd also note what many have said in the past, which is to the effect that whilst a FTSE100 company will have a lot of analysts pouring over every detail, a FTSE250 company will have many fewer analysts covering in somewhat less detail and once in small cap then of those still "covering" it means reading the headlines from the results twice per year, then maybe listening to the associated analysts call and not much more. The house broker dedicates some time to OXB, but of course we pay them to do that. There is a scenario here for OXB simply being under the radar.
I think it was Dom who questioned that if NH have the cash and so don't need to make the usual approach to the city or a bank in preparation, then where would the usual early rumour come from?
Maybe a little more than "coincidental" that Blackrock notified after the Novo H guy made the speech about buying up carefully selected service companies in our sector. Why? Well I would be surprised if Blackrock were following OXB in detail, but I would expect them to be following Novo Holdings and when Novo publicly floated their M&A plans then surely it's natural to look at their portfolio and see who they have already done the selection process on and bought into? Maybe a red herring, but that line of thought made sense to me.
Then we have the problem of who can actually buy in quantity even if they are taken with the idea? So even if fund "ABC" is following OXB in detail, then are they allowed to even buy into a small cap? I'm thinking here about the US funds who previously had to sell once market cap rules were triggered - why study what you can't buy?
So, assuming that the fund managers don't read these threads (and I suspect they have much better things to do), then we need an institutional buyer who follows OXB in detail, saw what the Novo boss said about M&A and doubling the size of Catalent, knows enough about what OXB can do to see that "a fit" and runs a fund which is allowed to buy small cap shares which don't make a profit. I'm guessing that would pretty much thin out the field regarding "the city".
Hopefully that explains my general thinking about how / why something could be happening in plain sight without the city seeming to notice / care. |
Because Catalent are deficient tech that OXB have (and arguably management that OXB has) |
Thanks Harry,
I have been lurking for some time and am grateful for your substantial contribution to this forum. Like you, I would be fine with holding on as Frank executes and the company rerates from its current massively discounted valuation - I believe his ambitions per the Times profile would be to grow the company to something substantially larger (repeat the Rentschler act etc) rather than do a quick sellout.
I'm curious about what you said about Catalent's half baked viral vector business, do you have any links supporting this claim? Furthermore if OXB themselves aren't at full capacity (and according to the Q&A last year won't need to expand for sometime), why would merging them with Catalent make sense? |
H. i am only chart man really and it has stood me in moderately good stead.
But what i don't quite understand is, if the majority of this BB tend to lean towards a possible takeover being discussed by the relevant party's, hence the assumption of a closed period and the lack of company news. Why has the wider market not cottoned on yet, Surely the share price would rise naturally from substantially increased buying volumes which would be impossible to reign in by the MMs etc. Are we in a closed privalliged club or are the the rest of the traders not seeing what we are seeing. I'm confused. |
axial,
Great name (where were you when we still had ProSavin?) and fair comments.
Phil has already replied, but just to be clear (and mentioned many times before) my preference would be to still be holding OXB a year from now as we go into a year of £250m sales and better than 20% EBITDA margin. I just don't think we will get there.
Something is going on with OXB at the moment (we saw a very similar pattern just before IM / ABL Europe became part of OXB), so I know something is going on - I just don't know what it is or when it will happen. It could of course just fall through and remain a mystery forever.
I'm sure that (out of the information in the public domain) the number 1 candidate has to be Novo Holdings, but that doesn't mean I'm sure Novo Holdings will do it. If I was then I would have sold my other shares, etc. and put the house on it - which I haven't.
As I say, Phil has given you a good reply, and I'll just annoy a few people if I do the full case again, but just a few points:-
After Robert (the NH guy who is a M&A specialist) joins OXB, the company changes.
Pure CDMO / Vector agnostic / No in house drug development of our own and so on.
Lots of people who we wouldn't expect to join a small cap company join.
No OXB insiders have bought since NH bid for Catalent.
I've tried to find out if the cell therapy division of Catalent (4 or 5 factories) offers what OXB has (vectors / knowhow / tech) and I'm as sure as I can be that they don't offer that, they simply offer to do contract work for customers who already have their own vector / tech. That's missing a big trick.
With pre-bid work, then due diligence and such, I'm pretty certain that Novo H would have known what they were getting with Catalent long before they handed over the cheque for $16.5bn.
We know the Novo H boss has said that he intends to buy up specialist service companies like OXB, of which he already owns 12%.
Novo H have either got to make Catalent (the remaining part) work or break it up and just sell it into the trade as a price which had to be paid in order to get the 3 big fill and finish plants for Nordisk.
Their public position is to make it pay - and actually double the size of it in 5 years.
I don't think anyone else can buy OXB now. I realise it's mathematically possible, but Novo H have a 12% start on anybody else outside of the company and of the other people within I don't think Serum or IM are candidates. So I think it's going to be Novo H (at some date / price of which I have no idea) or nobody.
As per my opener here, I'm really quite OK with it being nobody and OXB being a bn cap FTSE250 company.
Re the IR portion of the website, then yes we are due one of these but remember when OXB stopped the notification of contract wins they did promise industry standard reporting of that KPI table. Where is it?
Possibly embargoed / possibly by choice OXB seem to be in this mode of operation where they are telling us what they are obligated to tell us and not much more. I don't know why. It's not typical of OXB old or even OXB under Frank. Yes there is the notification of results which you point to, and even the Jefferies conference turn, but is there anything new in those which you wouldn't either have seen or been able to take a good guess at if you had studied the previous results? I think not.
Anyway, whatever it turns out to be I'm fine with it and just happy currently to be holding a company which has tuned the corner.
By the time we get to the results OXB will have paid off the final 10% of Boston (one more monkey off our back) and ABL (OXB Europe) will already have finished their first (part) year of selling OXB vectors (unless OXB have changed their year end now). Quite a lot going on besides (as you may remember from the 10 days of interims).
====
axial slice 30 Jan '25 - 20:24 - 9682 of 9687
Harry, the IR portion of the website states there will be a full year trading update in Feb.
As for the large move two days ago, that was a knock on of the Sartorius results.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself with the takeover theory. Don't go there - it's a miserable existence and there's just no way NH would do it without taking some significant time to first know what they've got with Catalent. |
....and he marched them up to the top of the hill, and he marched them down again. |
Looking ahead, for fiscal 2025, the company projects net sales to grow mid- to high-single digit and core operating income to grow high single to low double-digit.
"With the momentum we are seeing in the business, we expect to continue our strong sales growth with margin expansion in 2025 and we remain on track to deliver on our mid-term guidance," Novartis added.
More positive vibes from the european healthcare sector with Novartis reporting today ... |
Phil, I agree with you here...and it is probably what keeps me here for now given the less than perfect comms from our leaders.
The comments from Sartorius in their financials release are somewhat encouraging if you read the details and give a sense of an uptick in European biotech finally after several years in the post covid doldrums... |
The idea that Novo Holdings needs to wait and “figure out Catalent first” doesn’t really add up. They’ve been an investor in OXB since 2019, so they’ve already done their homework. Novo has publicly said they want to double the size of Catalent and turn it into a global CDMO powerhouse. OXB would immediately solve Catalent’s underutilized CGT capacity issue and bring best-in-class lentiviral tech—something Novo can’t easily build from scratch. Waiting too long would just make OXB more expensive, especially as the company is set to hit £180m+ revenue in 2025 and £250m+ in 2026, pushing up any potential buyout price.
Then there’s the weird silence from OXB—no insider buys for over a year, barely any news flow, and an unusually tight share price range. On top of that, BlackRock has increased its stake, and we’re seeing a lot of SINT trades, which can sometimes signal positioning ahead of a major event. If Novo wants to bid, doing it sooner makes sense, as they could justify a lower price based on 2025 figures. If they wait until later in 2026, they could be paying a lot more. Everything suggests they’ve been lining this up for a while. |
"Lonza announced its new vision and One Lonza strategy centered around the Lonza Engine, which brings together the company’s unique core competencies that enable outstanding value creation. As part of this, Lonza announced its intention to exit the CHI business and evolve into a pure-play CDMO. "
Mmmm "Pure play CDMO" where have I heard that before? |
Harry, the IR portion of the website states there will be a full year trading update in Feb.
As for the large move two days ago, that was a knock on of the Sartorius results.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself with the takeover theory. Don't go there - it's a miserable existence and there's just no way NH would do it without taking some significant time to first know what they've got with Catalent. |
Lonza looks to acquire more CDMO capacity Not many targets left? Can't think of oneHTTps://www.lonza.com/news/2025-01-29-06-25 |
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Hot Features
Premium
