Faron’s scientific advisory board does have a person from Yale and MD Anderson, and from Harvard and other top institutions.
6 Likes
Beginner stock market newbie here. Hypothetically and pulled out of thin air, some BP buys Faron for 3 billion. What is the share price then, or are these negotiation questions? I’m only looking for serious answers🙂 Just one more thing, this is otherwise an amazing forum, full of masters and plenty of information👍
3 Likes
The sale price is divided by the number of shares, ~105 million, so with a transaction sum of 3 billion (Euros), the share value would be approx. €28.60.
7 Likes
If PB buys with 3 billion (assuming dollars), then at today’s bank exchange rate it is 3000/1.05 M€.
It is approximately 2857 M€.
Faron now has 10424864 shares. That purchase amount divided by shares is 27.4 €/share.
If you multiply that price by the number of your shares and then by 0.66, you will get approximately your proceeds after taxes, if you don’t have significant tax deductions.
3 Likes
3 billion divided by the number of shares 104,624,864, makes the share price €28.67/share. There are a few million in loans, so they should be paid off first if sold debt-free.
With autumn, this is probably no longer the primary route, even though Juho said in the spring that the big players don’t bother with such small ones. Meaning that the whole company usually goes up for sale. However, things have changed, and according to the Capital Markets Day material I linked earlier today, Faron’s strategy is this.
Previously, we were only presented with the idea of how Bex works and then we only monitored what kind of responses and response rates were achieved, but at the ASH presentation, we were offered much more interesting data when it was shown how the mechanism of action of the original idea is also realized in practice. Now that Juho said the data is amazing, for me, at least, it felt that way for the first time too. Usually, I haven’t given much weight to Juho’s speeches, because Juho is a bit Juho and in the position of a CEO he has to praise things even if it doesn’t feel that way, but now it genuinely felt that way.
And now that the data is starting to come in and support that mechanism of action, there’s no need to worry anymore whether it works or not. Yes, it works when it’s so clearly visible. Previously, there was a small risk that better material had been selected for the study, and that, as always, the results would weaken when moving to a randomized phase 3, and by how much the results would then weaken.
Now, if we proceed in such a way that we can demonstrate the mechanism by which Bex works in Clever-1 (or should it always be mentioned separately, that soluble Clever-1) expressing cancer cases. Then that strategy also makes excellent sense. If and when the treatment works so specifically, it is also very important for the phases in other cancers. Let’s say there’s a cancer where only 20-30% of cases express Clever-1, then it’s much easier to get high response rates when only selecting those patients for whom the treatment is effective, instead of randomly selecting the entire pool if it’s already known from the outset that only 20-30% of that pool will benefit from the treatment.
If, for example, 20% miss out on a €100-200k treatment course, then that’s quite a few hundred million in wasted money, if the ineffectiveness can be checked with some easy cancer sample (in leukemia, probably a bone marrow sample) or however that is checked. I am not a professional in this, and everyone can see that from my text.. 
But let’s say we lose 20% of potential r/r MDS customers, then I feel that it can, on the other hand, be won back many times over elsewhere. Even just in obtaining the first marketing authorization if a subgroup of the Clever-1 population is created from those phases.
17 Likes
Thanks, masters. This is really an awesome forum, and it’s nice to follow the story. This will definitely turn out well. Let the results speak for themselves. Now we just wait, as I am an optimist.
6 Likes
Looking at Faron’s Facebook page, I wonder if Fjällskog and Roth are still involved?
It’s also true that this requires patience. For three consecutive years, things have been “pivotal.” Shareholder value has been grown. Well, mine has certainly diluted, but the scientific evidence potential has grown, and so the value has grown at least in theory. Maybe it will materialize someday. Many probably share the feeling of how the waiting stage has always been moved forward to the next conference, webcast, or similar.
Currently, what has been made public is that Juho has said that partnership is on the calendar this year, but perhaps the next stage is J-P Morgan… while waiting for that.
P.S. Situations change and nothing is written in stone. Good things are worth waiting for.
13 Likes
Fjälskog & Roth edelleen mukana. No problems (?)
8 Likes
There’s a good remedy for this. Stop waiting, then there won’t be any dates to be disappointed by. 
I myself stopped waiting, although I’m still somewhat waiting for the Q1/Q2 transition. I have a strong feeling that it will be Gilead in the first days of April that closes this deal.
11 Likes
More on mCR. In 2023, Zeidan’s group had quite direct words on the matter. mCR should not be used in ORR% calculation, as it likely leads to incorrect conclusions. Paywall.
”If non-randomized phase II trials include mCR in their ORR definition (as many ongoing trials do), the perceived benefit is inflated. Thus, if a randomized phase II or phase III trial is designed based on this potentially flawed endpoint, it will likely be negative if the endpoint is OS given that mCR does not correlate with OS.”
And yes, Bono says that 60% of mCR patients had “hematological improvement,” but the slides read “hematological improvements.”
Why is this? Bono wasn’t precise with his words anyway, failing to mention that the mOS of 13.4 months is still an estimate. So let’s dissect the wording “hematological improvements.” This apparently means that blood values have improved somewhat or for some time, but not sufficiently for the official IWG2006 definition of hematological improvement, HI. Otherwise, it would clearly state: HI.
So if we now look at the IWG2023 ORR%, it is 4/20, or 20%. I’m not including those two HIs either; one is clearly less than 8 weeks, and the other cannot be confirmed.
21 Likes
On the other hand, the recovery of blood values in r/r MDS patients might still be underpinned by extensive bone marrow damage that prevents the regeneration of normal blood cells? Without that, we always remain at mCR (when HI is not met). Once we get results from the first line, we will know more.
18 Likes
[Juho Jalkanen’s interview ] which I, at least, haven’t noticed on the forum. Apologies if it has already been linked.
Jalkanen talks about how a medicine used to treat one disease can have hidden properties to treat other diseases. The topic concerns Faron through Bexmap’s solid tumors.
(https://www.sfexaminer.com/marketplace/sudden-rise-of-ozempic-shows-possibility-of-hidden-pharma-gems-waiting-to-be-discovered-says/article_2df8293e-b7f1-11ef-8af5-577125e4e16a.html)
9 Likes
It would be good if Faron could really spell out and clarify this difference in interpretation for us investors.
2 Likes
I have followed this forum for a year and admired the experts’ contribution and deliberation, to the extent that I have understood (anything). This week’s episodes have significantly reduced our ownership value.
I believe in the power and community spirit of this forum and in the atmosphere that creates (shared) belief. However, since this is an investment thread, my humble wish for the forum’s experts would be a critical review, similar to what was mentioned above, of these Faron’s releases and results. You are the only ones who can do that. We all have a lot at stake in our own scale, but so does Faron. The tight pressure from this forum would perhaps hopefully help Faron towards success and a puritanical fighting mode. Now it’s serious. This journey of development is not a walk in the park. We all know its riskiness, but at the point if/when things start to look hazy regarding scientific information, it would be great if the forum readers would get their reward, i.e., be informed & ready to act with the support of experts.
Faron’s position is to be positive and create belief. To succeed, it also needs, in my opinion, a critical and opinionated (forum) voice. Thank you for your HI post, Clark Kent.
14 Likes
It’s indeed good to bring up Zeidan, as he recently joined Faron’s Scientific Advisory Board. The IWG2023 statement has already been discussed many times in the thread; Zeidan was in that working group, which had other opinions on mCR, as mentioned earlier in the thread.
First-line is larger in volume, and one must understand the difference in responses of r/r patients compared to them. CR has been clearly easier to achieve in first-line than in r/r in other trials as well, so it’s no wonder if responses more easily remain at the mCR level. The criteria recommendation did not, however, take a separate stance on first-line or r/r.
In May, when only some of the results were available, Juho asks him (video below at 32:40) how it looks. Zeidan emphasizes that, first of all, the drug must get into the body, and in that regard, Bex is good because there are hardly any side effects, unlike with other immunologicals.
”With mCR`s you want to have some haematological recovery so that you can have sense these are kind of, you know, meaningful, but for me, if you have good overall survival, over 12 months, that generally encouraging…then the ”very encouraging” comment if the results hold and more people accumulate, and it still looks that way.
Now all those very interested in Faron can interpret what the difference is between ”haematological improvement, HI”, ”haematological improvements” and ”some haematological recovery”.
In the end, these only have semantic meaning if survival ultimately determines the final marketing authorization. Responses certainly have added value even in this r/r group. If a proper CR is not achieved for a larger number in the first-line, it would be a problem, but as I showed earlier, not many CRs are needed anymore for statistical significance to show Bex’s effectiveness 
There is something good in the results even as presented, when Zeidan has put his name to them and Kontro presents them at a scientific meeting 
32 Likes
I don’t know if this has been referred to here, but at least this is exactly the story here.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497123002768
“A minority of the panelists felt that mCR could still have a value, especially in bridging patients to allo-HSCT, and should therefore still be reported. However, if mCR is reported, it should not be included in the ORR.”
With new treatments, such guidelines always need to be updated from time to time. Nor has it been a completely uniform opinion in that working group if someone/some have forcefully wanted to record their dissenting opinion in the minutes.
5 Likes
I have no medical understanding, but I’m speculating a bit with out-of-the-box ideas.
1)
What if Bex’s effectiveness as a drug isn’t as good as the general sentiment and belief on this forum suggests? (Towards Clark Kent). Faron runs out of money in early winter. What if Jalkanen is having the “business case” discussion he mentioned about whether someone will buy a 51% controlling stake in Faron for €100 million or €200 million. Or a 49% controlling stake. There are some results, but not good enough for billion-euro deals, and there will soon be no money in the cash register – the continuation of Faron (a life’s work centered around Clever-1) must be resolved in some way.
2)
Continuing from the previous point, or as a preceding matter. The Jalkanens have stated and lobbied that they want to create an even older biomedical cluster in Turku. And that Faron should be developed into a significant drug development company. There are drug candidates. What if the discussion in point one also includes demands that Faron’s drug development operations must not be moved elsewhere, but must continue in the Turku region as they are currently?
So here we, the small investors, are also eagerly awaiting a partnership or an acquisition at a high price, but the most likely outcome seems to be something between great success and a complete flop. Faron has provided information on Bex’s slowly progressing various testing branches, but absolutely nothing about the contractual party, apart from vague promiseware; therefore, all sorts of surprises might be expected from that side.
5 Likes
It’s good to bring up and weigh all perspectives. I think we, or at least I, have had rose-tinted glasses on until now. This forum has helped a lot with that. I’m trying to switch to clear glasses now, which, however, requires that, for example, this forum brings out both the pros and cons. Without experts, I don’t feel I can own this much.
If you listen to “Tomppa”… that song and hope and joy will continue forever, until the music stops or maybe not. I suggested above that the forum move to value-based realism. 
I haven’t lost my faith, but better safe than sorry.
4 Likes
I personally don’t have much expertise to question Bex’s results. For that, we fortunately have the FDA, which I nevertheless consider a group of professionals to evaluate which investigational drug has the potential to develop into a medicine in the future. Juho has also mentioned that fast-track status and the progression to first-line Phase 3 have opened negotiations with a really big pharma company. Just in terms of time/market potential alone, a really big development in a positive direction has occurred due to these reasons. Regarding some FDA decisions, I might start to reflect on my own perspective, as it should be a fairly neutral institution that has seen everything.
9 Likes
I agree. However, the FDA only grants licenses. That’s not necessarily enough yet. It would be good to understand how much money is needed to acquire that “car,” meaning distribution and market. In addition, a partner is needed who also receives substantial compensation from the “driving schools” (P3) and for distribution and market entry (globally). Unfortunately, potential has no value until it slowly or quickly begins to materialize. That is one of the main reasons for Faron’s share price tunnel.
5 Likes