Clinuvel

IntiRaymi

Well-known member
...A look over the fence to see what our competition is up to.

La Roche-Posay recently released a new sunscreen called "Anthelios UVMune 400". There's a nice post on LinkedIn incl. appealing video.

They claim that it protects the skin from wavelength up to 400 nm and have a clinical trial + publication to back their claims.
https://www.jidinnovations.org/article/S2667-0267(21)00071-0/fulltext

If Clinuvel manages to create similar diagrams which then show a broader absorbance range from their polychromatic sunscreen than competitor products, that'd be a real distinction. Visualising the extent of DNA damage (or biomarkers for it) in such charts would also help to understand the advantages of Clinuvel's OTCs over other products.

Of course they need to explain these advantages to the public. And even then, a company such as L'Oreal (La Roche-Posay) has a multiple of CUVs audience reach + brand loyalty + huge marketing machinery. And there's still the challenge of a competitive price...Anthelios UVMune 400 costs 20 USD / 50 ml.

Imo CUV has to be able to present quantitative data to show the superiority of their sunscreen vs. conventional products. Maybe that's why the analysis of their DNA study takes longer than expected? Are they doing additional investigations with skin samples treated with conventional products vs. Afamelanotide? This could be a potential way forward. I am really curious to see how they communicate the unique selling proposition of their OTCs to the target group.

View attachment 3547
I think that in marketing, the approach of trying to sell the customer on data and quantitative aspects of a product isn’t as compelling to the masses as the telling of a story. What’s the expression, “the dispassionate statistic is not as convincing as the emotional anecdote” -something like that (probably the main reason so many folk were willing to accept the disproportionate measures that governments have taken over the last few years…)

Looking at that hikewood fella’s latest post (I quite like that guy as an ambassador) It’s the sort of thing that will move people to share his story and attach themselves to the solution associated with the problem. I.e; an impeccable sunscreen from the leaders in photoprotection (or preferably a melanogenic topical)
 

Frogster

Well-known member
I'm not sure if everyone realised (I didn't) that PW was briefly quoted in the FT article posted in part by @SBB yesterday.

I can't link directly to the article, but when I googled "Hedge funds scoop up biotech stocks after ‘catastrophic’ declines" it gave me a link to the full piece.

The article was written by the same journalist who penned the "Get Shorty" piece just over a year ago. It seems that PW has found one he's comfortable talking to.
 
Last edited:

investek

Well-known member
I updated the tables in the research thread Tracking Changes in Company Awareness, see below.
A2822DAD-8C25-4CC8-863B-4C6451E8899D.jpeg

Note: The top table is Clinuvel and bottom Light Skin Science. Last column is ‘LinkedIn’ for CUV vs ‘TikTok’ for Light Skin Science.

Seems like they only recently went live with TikTok, it will be interesting to track progress.

(In a few months I will graph a summary of the data so we can better see rates of change).
 
Last edited:

Verharven

Well-known member
Watch in full-screen mode to avoid the need to sign up. He starts the biotech discussion at 11min on PNV, PME and CUV. It's mostly TA (which is important to some, but not me), but at least some exposure.

A history lesson and three stocks to watch

Glover takes a look at the S&P 500 and ASX200, and identifies a couple of levels that might be key to watch. Finally, we round at the show with a look at some healthcare sector names - Polynovo (PNV), Promedicus (PME) and Clinuvel (CUV) - which are flashing some positive signals on their charts

 
Last edited:

Shedjock

Member
Although it matters little, it's a shame that whilst he's talking about Clinuvel and a positive bounce from high $13's, they show the PNV chart. There's a conspiracy happening.......
 

Klomp

3rd Longest Active Member
There's a conspiracy happening.......
Institutions don’t need FT articles to point them in the right direction. This is self inflicted. The share price reflects the market perception of the company. They have told us they are conducting investor presentations, yet we still see very little buyside. So why is this? Two main options:
1. The company is just not as attractive as many shareholders (including me) think it is. Which is possible.
2. Investors are incorrectly not seeing the value, which probably comes down to how management are presenting it.

I’m sure many investors think a company with a tanning drug sounds interesting, but could also be a gimmick. How well does it work? Practically speaking, does it product a nice aesthetic outcome, or not? And only certain institutions will be willing to take a “bet” on this. Many more will vote with their feet once it proves itself.

I don’t see many investors putting value /weight on the CNS component of the company. It’s too early and such a long long long way from the finish line.
 

Samc60

Well-known member
Institutions don’t need FT articles to point them in the right direction. This is self inflicted. The share price reflects the market perception of the company. They have told us they are conducting investor presentations, yet we still see very little buyside. So why is this? Two main options:
1. The company is just not as attractive as many shareholders (including me) think it is. Which is possible.
2. Investors are incorrectly not seeing the value, which probably comes down to how management are presenting it.

I’m sure many investors think a company with a tanning drug sounds interesting, but could also be a gimmick. How well does it work? Practically speaking, does it product a nice aesthetic outcome, or not? And only certain institutions will be willing to take a “bet” on this. Many more will vote with their feet once it proves itself.

I don’t see many investors putting value /weight on the CNS component of the company. It’s too early and such a long long long way from the finish line.
To dispell doubt about the virtues of the OTCs all PW needs to do is reach down , open the drawer of his desk and pas a bottle around .. along the lines of " Pass the dutchie from the left hand side " the solution to the confusion appears rather simple really. But let's instead just talk about it for the next 6 months to make sure everyone looses interest. Just like the mythological 6th indication..... 😀
 

SBB

Active member
@Frogster

Well spotted - I was in a rush when I copied over. Article in full sans the headline.

FT touchy about reprinting of their work. So this copies over wihtout the Nasdaq biotech share graph. And all the paragraphs were mashed into one so I've separated the strands. Wolgen comment in italics.



Hedge funds are hunting for bargains in the beaten-down biotechnology sector, betting that a vicious sell-off has run its course and that lower valuations will breathe life back into deal flow.

A Nasdaq index of biotech stocks has tumbled almost a third from its all-time high last August, as hopes about the Covid-19 pandemic boosting the industry gave way to worries about frothy share prices. The sharp sell-off has, in turn, left many companies struggling to raise new funding.

However, some hedge fund managers now believe that prices have fallen too far relative to firms’ drug development prospects and their remaining cash levels. Those investors have started buying up stocks on the cheap, or launching portfolios to capitalise on the turmoil.

“This is the worst correction [in the biotech sector] I have seen in my 22-year career,” said Michele Gesualdi, founder of London-based investment group Infinity Investment Partners. “We have never seen stress like this.”

Gesualdi’s firm, which manages $1.5bn in assets, recently launched a new fund specifically to focus on opportunities in the life sciences sector. He added that the sector is, on all metrics, “as cheap as it has ever been”.

Industry insiders attributed the sell-off in the sector in part to the departure of so-called tourist investors who do not specialise in biotech but who were hunting for returns during the early stages of the pandemic.

Investors have also grown concerned about regulatory scrutiny of dealmaking and the possibility that companies may start to run out of funding.

The ensuing market reversal has proved particularly difficult for a sector that had grown accustomed to record-low interest rates and a seemingly never-ending equity bull market. Such companies’ future profits are highly valued when interest rates are near zero, but appear less so when borrowing costs rise.

“Coming out of the Covid tunnel, seeing inflation rise at [a] higher pace than predicted by any central bank, the [biotech] sector has faced unexpected adversity,” said Philippe Wolgen, chief executive of Australian biotech Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals, whose share price has fallen from almost A$45 in September to A$15 (US$10).

After a “catastrophic” fall in the sector, fund managers and bankers “are openly expressing their aversion to perpetuating these risky ventures”, he added, referring to backing companies with little prospect of revenues in the near term. However, he said investors were starting to look at “genuine business[es]” in the sector.


Mergers and acquisitions activity, meanwhile, traditionally a major support for valuations as big pharmaceutical companies look for ways of building their drugs pipeline, has also dried up. The deal count in 2022 has fallen to its lowest level for the opening six months of a year in more than a decade, according to Evaluate Pharma.

The sell-off has hit some specialist healthcare hedge funds hard. One of the highest-profile funds to suffer is New York-based Perceptive Advisors, which lost about 32 per cent last year and is down 35 per cent this year to late June, according to numbers sent to investors and a person familiar with the performance.

California-based Endurant Capital, run by Vietnamese trader Quang Pham, lost 6.8 per cent in its Health Master fund this year to the end of May, although it has made back some ground in June.

Last year San Francisco-based Asymmetry Capital shut after losses, with its founder highlighting how difficult life had become for small, biotech-focused funds.

Nevertheless, some managers believe now is the right time to build exposure to the sector.

“It’s the one area where there’s been complete and utter capitulation,” said Andrew Clifford, chief executive of Sydney-based Platinum Asset Management, which manages $14bn in assets. The firm is launching an EU-regulated version of a health sciences fund it already manages, as it tries to profit from the sell-off.

SYZ Capital has also been adding to its positions in funds trading the sector, and sees opportunities in the US and, longer term, in China.

“We are positive on biotech,” said Cedric Vuignier, head of liquid alternative managed funds.

Recommended Biotech Biotechs face ‘funding Sahara’ as easy money runs dry UBS’s hedge fund unit O’Connor earlier this year hired a team from Alera Partners to run a new strategy betting on rising and falling prices and focused on healthcare therapeutics. The strategy is part of O’Connor’s multi-strategy fund, but could eventually be launched as a separate fund, said a person familiar with the firm’s plans.

“Healthcare is a perfect example of where we want to be exposed,” said chief investment officer Kevin Russell, who believes there is capacity for more than $1tn of deals in the sector as pharma companies try to build their drug pipeline.

Russell added that there had been “very little distinguishing between stocks” by investors.

“We think [this] is a function of a lack of experience and scientific knowledge” among investors, and should present opportunities for O’Connor to make money betting on rising and falling prices, he said.
 

CUV Quote (Yesterday's close)

Time: 4:10PM AEST
Price: 19.98
Volume: 160415
Top