ADVFN Logo ADVFN

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for charts Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.

OXB Oxford Biomedica Plc

309.50
-2.50 (-0.80%)
24 Jun 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Oxford Biomedica Plc LSE:OXB London Ordinary Share GB00BDFBVT43 ORD 50P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -2.50 -0.80% 309.50 71,462 16:35:22
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
311.00 312.50 312.00 310.00 310.50
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
Medicinal Chems,botanicl Pds 89.54M -184.16M -1.8414 -1.69 312.04M
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
16:35:42 O 10,000 309.50 GBX

Oxford Biomedica (OXB) Latest News (1)

Oxford Biomedica (OXB) Discussions and Chat

Oxford Biomedica Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
24/6/202420:25OXB. One owner, FSH Excellent conditionwith ejector seat8,151
13/3/202411:08Where we going945
13/2/202412:39Oxford Biomedica2,118
14/9/202310:29Open-minded posters thread576
26/4/202315:56OXB - sense and sensibility479

Add a New Thread

Oxford Biomedica (OXB) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2024-06-24 15:35:43309.5010,00030,950.00O
2024-06-24 15:35:22309.5038,283118,485.89UT
2024-06-24 15:28:18312.005031,569.36AT
2024-06-24 15:28:18312.00125390.00AT
2024-06-24 15:23:26310.5043133.52AT

Oxford Biomedica (OXB) Top Chat Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 24/6/2024 09:20 by Oxford Biomedica Daily Update
Oxford Biomedica Plc is listed in the Medicinal Chems,botanicl Pds sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker OXB. The last closing price for Oxford Biomedica was 312p.
Oxford Biomedica currently has 100,013,988 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Oxford Biomedica is £312,043,643.
Oxford Biomedica has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of -1.69.
This morning OXB shares opened at 310.50p
Posted at 18/6/2024 10:22 by harry s truman
This isn't the news which would have the insiders embargoed as it was all public.

OXB didn't need the money as they turned the year with cash of £103.7 million, told us that there was very little capex planned and that we would be broadly breakeven on operations this year. QED no immediate need for cash.

The timing of this was down to OXB not IM.

OXB would still get the same amount of money from IM whether they issued more or less shares than today in September as it's a contractual clause which IM were tied into for a fixed amount of cash in exchange for a variable amount of new shares.

My take on this (caution the glass half full here) is that the timing when OXB don't need the cash is a thankyou to IM with an eye to what is comming.

IM sold us ABL for an unbelievably low multiple of sales and then also put in 10m Euro in cash to fund the transition of ABL to exactly what OXB needed.

If OXB have now looked at what might happen in the next quarter and decided it's right to let ABL have the shares at the average today, then I'm fine with that and see it as fair given what they did for us.

Those of us who have been here for a while might remember when we ended up borrowing from a very sharp outfit who on top of onerous loan terms also wanted their share of the company for free (wasn't it 4%?) as a signing on tribute. After the loan term ended they then sold those free shares down against us as a thank you. This RNS today is a much fairer and more acceptable arrangement.
Posted at 18/6/2024 08:18 by cousinit
The market doesn't like uncertainty, and in picky markets even relatively minor uncertainty could be used as a stick to beat the share price with...

As the price for IM was the 6m VWAP price, the volume over the recent results would still be a chunky weighting. If the share price moved higher in the coming months it would need volume as well to pull the calculated price materially higher.
Posted at 18/6/2024 08:01 by marwalker
So at OXB discretion till September?Which way do you want to play itOXB thinks that it is unlikely there will be much better share price in that period so go now. OrOXB thinks the share price will be much higher and wants a good deal for IM ?
Posted at 25/5/2024 11:51 by harry s truman
I think both can be true. I'm sure you are correct about part of the current situation, but we know from news stories that last year that there were record withdrawals from funds / unit trusts / whatever, and that the likes of Liontrust (big holder in OXB of course) were periodically selling a small percentage of every holding to cover those redemptions. Have those withdrawals stopped completely now or just slowed? Is it still happening but being absorbed much better by current renewed interest in OXB?

On a very small sample size I think your argument about short term profit taking is probably carried simply by some of the names frequently posting here (and then not posting here).

On the other hand, I've watched OXB for many years now and I'm pretty convinced that they have something significant and currently unknown to us on the go (unless malaria is a lucky guess).

There are too many little clues - no insiders buying after the results - no press stories from OXB to the papers following the results - the number of production staff we are recruiting - this director role with the spend which doesn't match our current business - and so on.

You could argue that it's simply organic and the proof of what Seb previously told us - i.e. 2 serious enquiries per week and a win rate which is getting us a lot of work. But after explaining that to us (and the market) more of the same wouldn't stop the insiders buying in that little open period which normally follows the half yearly financial statement.

Unfortunately these days (and this is not a complaint) the success of OXB (which I realise you would never guess by the share price) means it's increasingly difficult to keep track. I'm sure you know what I mean, but 6 customers at the end of 2017 vs 35 last month - when most of them are now confidential? It's a different kettle of fish.

There are a few things we know. We know the US government is about to sanction WuXi and we know that OXB has received enquiries from people looking for a contingency.

We know we have a deal with Serum to provide capacity to make a lot of something for a decade. We just don't know what it is. Malaria vaccine seems a good fit.

We know there is a commercial production deal for myeloma CAR-T in the works, because they told us recently - but the partner isn't obvious.

Would any of those double the spend of our purchasing team? Maybe not individually, but combined then very possibly.

Or it could be something completely different...
Posted at 15/5/2024 10:14 by harry s truman
taffy,

I'd be cautious about hoping for too much there (certainly at this stage anyway) with the GeoVax deal. I like it and it's very positive, I'd just be wary that it might not be worth as much to us as we have come to expect with OXB deals.

Remember the ABL deal in a nutshell came around because ABL couldn't make traction and get access to the lucrative markets which OXB could, whilst OXB was fast running out of space / capacity for process development work - which ABL had lots of.

We had a connection to them via Seb as an advisor to IM and a dream deal was done.

However, I think it's important to remember that if anything they had was particularly valuable, then their turnover for everything last year would likely have been more than Euro 15m.

At this point I'll contradict myself (normal, as you know) and say that as the GeoVax deal was basically this time last year and this type of work almost always seems to be invoice upon completion (not stage payments), then maybe it is worth a lot more and it just didn't get invoiced before their year end.

So this is one of those situations where I'd really like to be wrong, it's just that by looking at that £13m end of year figure and noting two locations / multiple existing contracts, it does suggest that none of the existing / legacy ABL contracts are very big.

In fact (and I'm unleashing my brush of sweeping statements here) I think that because the GeoVax link is in the public domain, and had it been significant on the OXB scale, then it would have likely appeared in our presentation (on the logo page) as a win and obvious plus of the ABL deal.

I'm not trying to be negative and I will point out the obvious that money is still money and it's always nice to have, but logic does suggest the very likely possibility here that OXB has already placed more early stage work (in value) in France than they had there in total before. Maybe not, but OXB don't do anything which will be cheaper than single digit millions, so just 3 or 4 early stage process development contracts transferred to France? Remember they also started doing that in Boston late last year too, literally because Oxford is at capacity for upstream process development work.

This is a good news story and I'm not trying to pee on it, it's just a perspective thing.

The OXB watcher in me tells me that this commercial production deal which is about to drop (see recent RNS) is likely to be worth many times as much (even if the quantities aren't huge) not least because being commercial supply rather than trial support means the duration of the contract is likely to be very much longer.

If you want one of our earlier stage contracts to focus on (out of the few where we actually know a name) then I would be looking at Cabaletta.

Cabaletta may be our biggest contract (by number of programmes) because the first deal with them is for CAART and then they like that so much that they come back to us and do a deal for CABA-201.

If you look at their pipeline that's 11 programmes, but of more interest is that "initial clinical data from each of the first patients in the RESET-Myositis™ and RESET-SLE™ trials anticipated in 1H24".

(That quote is from them). So 6 weeks left in H1 and they are due early data. Because of the way these kind of treatments work, then it will be either quite obvious that it works - and a great sign for the rest with the same platform - or it won't. That one could be very positive for us.

The secret commercial deal is still likely the biggest significant near term gamechanger of the things we know about - even though we don't know the detail (if that makes sense).
Posted at 10/5/2024 10:04 by harry s truman
Surely we all know the answer to that one? Big news.

Nobody needs the full history of OXB to know that they were battered by the coronavirus pandemic restrictions on trials, because most of their customers were either working from home (i.e. not working) or had their trials put on hold because the hospital beds which need to be on standby for trials were reserved for covid.

Happily that is consigned to history now and will hopefully never be repeated.

We know from what Stuart has previously told us that OXB's costs for everything are somewhere around £130m per year.

Sales of around that and we roughly breakeven. Anything above that and our EBITDA margin rises ever upwards until we hit full capacity. So better than 20% on 2026 revenue and maybe eventually 30+%.

A couple of minor problems for small shareholders here are that OXB have told us for over a year now that they aren't routinely going to announce normal sized contract wins anymore - unless the customer specifically wants to.

(and)

They will instead keep us up to date with regular updates on this KPI table, but without actually telling us where and when we will get to see it.

So not for the first time we are in a position where all seems good (very good in fact), but we have to trust that it actually is going as OXB have told us (which it should be).

Out of the ordinary (i.e. big) news would help a lot, not just because it changes all previous guidance, but because the last paragraph of any RNS like that is usually a mini trading update on everything else.

Are we due something like that with the directors not buying? Probably. Will it happen sooner rather than later? Probably. Are biotech deal timeframes very long? For a big deal definitely.

I can only repeat my experience of the original Novartis tie-up. That was excitement on prospects, then impatience and repeat, with the price up and down accordingly. Eventually that got us to about £10 pre-covid (remember that much smaller company is no France, no Boston and only a handful of contracts) then covid changes everything (knocked us right down to £3(ish), built us up to £16(ish), knocked us right back down to £3(ish) again) meanwhile 6,000+ people with no previous hope got the Novartis treatment thanks to OXB.

You will have worked out long ago that I think the key to market success for OXB investors is getting back into the FTSE250. That seems to guarantee more of everything - more news coverage in the papers, more broker interest, more institutions who can buy (some in the trackers have to) and so on - and I'm convinced that eventually OXB will get there.

When? I don't know. My target is this year, but it might need the interim results showing that all is well and on track first. Meanwhile a lot of small investors are likely to have got fed up and sold (again).

Next index review is the end of this month but to double the price in 3 weeks would take some epic news. Could a really big deal (big enough for OXB to be in a closed period and big enough for them to have to announce because of changed guidance) do that in such a short time when OXB are in this sandwich year here between loss and profit?

I'm sure it's possible. Will it happen in the next 3 weeks? No idea.
Posted at 06/5/2024 10:35 by harry s truman
takeiteasy,

Having owned OXB as both FT smallcap and FTSE250 constituent, I can tell you for certain that there's a noticeable difference - not just in visibility, but also wrt impact of any news.

I've no way to prove this to you, but we learned during the sustained selling last year that whilst some of it was due to funds like Lionstrust selling a % of every stock they owned to enable them to pay redemptions as their investors withdrew fund units, there were also funds who sold everything simply because OXB had fallen below the minimum market cap size for their own fund holding rules and as OXB then dropped out of certain financial indexes which I'd never heard of, that was like a vicious circle of one causing the other.

Had OXB managed to land something significant prior to that and just hang on in the FTSE250, then none of the mkt cap related selling would have happened - or let's say it would have been nowhere near as bad for us investors. Unfortunately politics and the post-covid economy gave them a right kicking and last week may have marked the beginning of the return.

There are lots of possibilities where OXB could make a small profit this year, but remember that almost all of what OXB do as a CDMO these days is work where the payment comes at the end. So whilst anything significant would be great news, if they won something tomorrow which took 9 months to do then that's in the 2025 FY figures which we already know is a profit - so just a bigger profit next year.

Malaria is the easiest possibility to guess because it's in the news all the time, we have the agreement in place with the prime contractor and they are under certain constraints regarding manufacture. It's also by far the biggest market (regarding number to be treated) of anything since covid.

Is that any guarantee we will still get it? Nope, there are no guarantees, but even a small chunk of that would be a big thing for us. There is the issue of distribution here, which might be a bigger obstacle than supply, but regardless of demand which can actually be used right now, it can be manufactured in anticipation and kept cold for a long time.

A couple of years ago Stuart started using a particular slide which has evolved into slide 22 on this

Back to my theory that OXB try quite hard to tell you things which they can't actually tell you, then for me that is them telling you that a $ represents a unit of millions in dollars.

So, early stage upstream development shown as $-$$ means contracts typically worth single digit millions of USD and occasionally double figures.

Downstream and trial support, especially if it's a big trial needing lots of material is $$-$$$ (and remember here that most trials take a long time, so that's not all in one year), but of course commercial supply is the standout here and the point is that it is most lucrative and ongoing for the life of the approved drug.

In the very long example of last night (sorry about that, I ended up on a roll) malaria is already through the trial process and approved, so it would be straight to commercial supply for 10 years (at least). That's a very big thing for OXB.

Stuart said in a previous webcast (JPM) "those commercial products are gold because that gives you the predictable routine manufacturing." then went on to add that they were working very hard to get something else alongside Kymriah commercial supply.

20th of March their RNS said "Recently, the Company signed a contract with a new undisclosed US-based biotechnology company for the manufacture of lentiviral vectors as the client prepares for the commercial launch of its CAR-T programme targeting multiple myeloma. Manufacturing will take place in Oxbox, the Company's Oxford-based manufacturing facility.".

If they end up with 3 commercial clients (i.e. 2 more in a relatively short time) then that's a huge thing for OXB - but whether that tips us into profit for 2024 or just ensures a monster 2025 I don't know.
Posted at 01/5/2024 11:51 by harry s truman
I've seen similar many times with OXB (and other companies) before and it reminds me of the old adage about the transfer of money from the impatient to the patient.

I'm easy about it and if people who bought in for the results are now taking a few quid out, well nobody ever made a loss taking a profit did they? Even if it is a small profit taken early vs what is on the table long term.

I mentioned the other day about Novartis (obviously a fantastic long term partner for us) and with each announcement it was 2 steps forward and 1 back until it sunk in with the people who matter that a commercial supply deal for them was worth a lot of money to OXB for a long time. You can see those Novartis dates in the long term chart and how the climb lags. Unfortunately covid and the world going mad knocked us down from the Novartis gains, then built us up with the AZ deal and then knocked us down again.

To dive back into my lucky dip of useful sayings, some days you're the pigeon, other days the statue.

Back to where we are and the words of the great philosopher Paul Tuttle Snr., "that was is what was but this is is what is now".

I'd hoped for better press coverage than what we got following the results. That may still be coming, but if it doesn't come soon then OXB need to make some news themselves. I'm actually quite confident that they can do that and of course there were mentions / hints in the webcast.

They listed 2 commercial supply partners, before explaining that it isn't really 2 just yet, it's Novartis + 1 undisclosed preparing for commercial production.

Just who that refers to (we have had many guesses here) doesn't really matter, but I do remember from Novartis and their submission for review, a really important part of the submission (nearly as important as the actual trial data) is proving that if you are granted a licence for a medicine then you can show that you have in place a proven capability to supply drug material immediately to meet the treated need (of that granted licence).

This is what OXB will be doing right now. So whichever regulator it is (MHRA / EMA / FDA) will either be auditing whichever OXB facility have prepared for this work or studying a presentation by OXB's in house QA/QC/Validation people submitted to cover the same thing.

So when the final data for our partner's drug goes before the regulator review committee (soon) part of that submission will be a guarantee of what amount OXB can supply by when and the standards it will meet. It may even have happened and they are simply waiting for the announcement.

Regardless of the if / but / when / where vagaries of that statement, very soon OXB have 2 commercial supply bankers where instead of one off batches for trial supply, they will produce batches continually to meet demand for the life of the drug. It's a big thing for OXB (and us).

On top of this we have Stuart admitting that they are talking about / looking at a couple of things outside of what we would normally do - and surely one of those has to be the long held presumption here of the malaria vaccine for Serum.

My only caution there (assuming our collective guesses are close) is that WHO > UNICEF > GAVI > Serum > OXB in a long line provides massive possibilities for that taking a lot longer than it needs to - but you never know.

An announcement about that would be game changing news for us, but to repeat something I've mentioned before - the only time I've ever seen these huge organisations rush something through was during covid.
Posted at 29/4/2024 22:03 by harry s truman
Parting shot for results day. The slides are here

The webcast usually takes a few days to get put on the OXB website, so for anybody who didn't get a chance to see it today I have a few notes which I thought interesting:-

I've already mentioned Sardocor (whose logo you can see on slide 13) and who seem very likely to be the undisclosed cardio partner mentioned in the last OXB CDMO update.

Other things - please note this is from my memory based upon some headings I jotted down - and just the order I remember them here:-

The LentiVector transition to the USA has gone very well. They are already taking work from Oxford and are ready for new customers now and at bigger scale later in the year.

They mention Frank's "One OXB" (which I think was previously "everything everywhere" so they must have decided on a better name) where every site will do every vector, and that it's a big thing for our customers to have their investment close by and (in particular with the Americans) closer to their time(zone).

They wanted to stress that the 5 late stage / commercial programmes (3 in phase 3 trials and 2 commercial (Novartis production + 1 preparing for commercial) does not include anything which might be approved from phase 2 BLA.

So the late stage genuinely means going from phase 3 the traditional route, whilst the phase 2 BLA route would be grouped with the other 46 programmes. In less words the number in late stage is/could be better than it looks.

They mention about Homology and explain that the deal was done on 4 pillars - the location & equipment / the people with the knowhow / the vector IP / the Homology work. They said that they wanted the first 3 but the 4th was the deal and that it was always going to be binary. We lost that and there is the impairment charge.

As it worked out, by 2023 41% of our work was AAV (from nothing in Jan 2022) and that 41% of the work only came because of the Homology deal.

It's now growing, but is mostly earlier stage than the LentiVector work and so it will be a time gap before we have a mix which is the different vectors but same spread of trial stages.

I think it was Seb who said that 2022 to 2024 so far is a doubling of the pipeline - and of course the year is far from finished.

Stuart talked about starting the year with £100+m gross cash and said that the capex we needed to do is mostly done now and that he can control spend until we need to do the last phase of OxBox which I think he said was 28/29. In other words he has no need to raise more in the near / medium term.

One of the analysts asked him what OXB's capacity was without expansion (how much money is full capacity) and Stuart wouldn't answer but then said between 2x and 3x current would be the number, before adding that nobody ever really wants to be full because if someone puts in an enquiry and your reply is that you can fit them in 18 months down the road then they look elsewhere.

If I understand correctly then France has a year end in February and they have already closed with a small loss which IM are covering (so that costs us nothing). They explain that OXB will broadly breakeven this year, but what is being spent in France makes that a small loss for the group, even though we are not paying it.

The RBC analyst asked if the big announcement last month was included in figures which OXB have chopped at the end of March and it isn't.

The JPM analyst asked an interesting question, which was "will H2 on its own be profitmaking" and the Sir Humphrey style reply seemed to be yes.

This then morphed into a question of "could this year be profitmaking?" and Stuart replied with words something like "we are working on a couple of things which are outside of the normal scope for our traditional work and if those come in then they would be on top of / above guidance".

The only thought which popped into my mind there was that a malaria vaccine for Serum is not CGT CDMO and so would fit those words very well.

Stuart wanted to stress that he was vary confident of the current guidance. I think his words were that '24 and the majority of '25 is there now. Adding that they also have a few interesting things which are not baked into current guidance.

The guy from Stiefel wanted to know if the 2024 growth so far is really just because of what ABL added or if it's organic. Stuart said both and it's proportional.

Numis asked if post-Homology we had lost important people in Boston and the reply was no and that we had kept almost everyone we hoped to keep - adding that OXB group has a very low turnover of staff (who see what OXB is about and want to stay part of it).

Killer question for me came from Miles at Peel Hunt, who asked about the sanctions on WuXi that the US are going to vote on at some point. Basically who will do the work if US companies can't send it there. Seb (I think) answered with - "Has anyone asked to transfer work from them to us? No. Has anyone made enquires? Yes.".

Interesting one that isn't it?

Remember - this is from memory of the webcast only so bear that in mind.
Posted at 26/4/2024 00:15 by harry s truman
Pleased you sorted it out and hopefully it's of some use.

Regarding the results on Monday and more importantly the reaction to them, then I'm hopeful that they will wake a lot of people up (not just the analysts of the covering brokers).

If you go back a year then we had just one broker rating OXB as a hold. After the interims it was 5 rating OXB as a hold. It's only just gone back to 4 with Stifel recently taking OXB off the naughty step, but the big show at the interims plainly put a lot of the analysts in "we'll wait and see" mode.

Can't really blame them. New CEO says £41m loss in '22, bigger loss in '23, but it ends at that and we save £30m per year from now on and by 2026 we will have at least doubled '23 revenue and be earning better than 20% EBITDA on that. It's a bold claim isn't it?

You all know I'm sold on the message, but even I admit that's quite a turnaround. Reassuringly, they have said a couple of times since that they are on track and hitting the targets. RBC seem convinced and are nudging ever closer to £8 with their 12 month target. Stifel are coming around to the idea but have a target of less than half that.

It's up to OXB now to convince the doubters on Monday.

I've convinced myself that Stuart has told us (without saying as much) that OXB's fixed costs for the business (UK, Boston, France, everything) is somewhere a little over £130m. I base that guess on bits from many releases and presentations, but I also think the "broadly breakeven" on £126m to £134m means that the actual cost is somewhere in that £8m spread where £126m is a small loss and £134m may even be a tiny profit.

The tantalising prospect here (if that guess is correct) is that anything Stuart hasn't put into that forecast (because he can't do "we're talking to and we might get" as a forecast) will change this year radically. OXB have already told us that they will no longer put legacy milestone payments into their forecasts - but we do still have a lot of legacy contracts of the royalty and milestone type. If one of those drops a milestone payment on a trial stage or an approval, then that's a big thing in a year which at the moment is "broadly breakeven".

Seb seems to be able to sell sand to the Arabs, but something late trial stage or commercial supply is worth a lot of money to us. Same goes for our regular guessing game about Serum and such. If we hear about one of those on Monday and suddenly it looks like we could be profitable again this year, then nobody in the market at the moment (including RBC) is forecasting that.

If what OXB suggested in that webcast is true (that we are the only pure CGT viral vector CDMO, with all the other major players simply doing CGT as just a small division of a much bigger business) then what happens if the predictions regarding the market size (see quote below) come true? Everyone else is going to see their CGT business unit stretched to capacity whilst OXB is going to see the whole company stretched to capacity. The gearing at that point would be phenomenal for OXB's revenue / earnings.

(quote)

Market Overview of Global CGT CDMO market: According to our latest research, the global CGT CDMO market looks promising in the next 5 years. As of 2022, the global CGT CDMO market was estimated at USD 4129.71 million, and it’s anticipated to reach USD 20489.61 million in 2028, with a CAGR of 30.6% during the forecast years. A contract development and manufacturing company (CDMO) is a company within the pharmaceutical industry that provides drug development and manufacturing services. Pharmaceutical companies partner with CDMOs as a way to outsource drug development and drug manufacturing. Cell and gene therapy (CGT) involves living cells, tissues, viral vectors and non-viral gene modification components. Its R&D technology and production process are more difficult than those of traditional biological drugs. CGT CDMO, as the upstream of CGT pharmaceutical companies, can help cell therapy companies overcome many difficulties in R&D and production while reducing costs, to improve R&D efficiency and enhance the commercialization success rate.

(unquote)
Oxford Biomedica share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock