contentSlug

type

ContentSlug_ContentQuery

slug

ContentPageContentQuery

content

trendingContent

query ContentSlug_ContentQuery(
  $contentSlug: String!
  $type: [ContentType!]
) {
  ...ContentPageContentQuery_13QmVO
}

fragment CompanyDetails_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  companies {
    name
    description
    pageUrl
    id
  }
}

fragment ContentBasicInfo on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  id
  type
  title
  lang
  companies {
    viewerIsFollowing
    id
    name
    pageUrl
  }
  tags {
    viewerIsFollowing
    id
    name
    pageUrl
  }
  ...PublishingDetails
  ...Reactions
}

fragment ContentMetadata on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  type
  title
  lang
  pageUrl
  alternatePageUrls: translations {
    __typename
    pageUrl
    lang
  }
  imgUrl
  description
  ... on Video {
    liveTime
    videoUrl
  }
  ... on Webcast {
    liveTime
    videoUrl
  }
}

fragment ContentPageContentQuery_13QmVO on Query {
  content(slug: $contentSlug, type: $type) {
    __typename
    id
    type
    title
    isPremium
    lang
    htmlBody
    summary
    companies {
      forum {
        latestPosts {
          ...ForumPosts
        }
      }
      name
      id
      viewerIsFollowing
      pageUrl
      defaultInstrument {
        isin
        id
        marketOpen
        marketClose
        marketplace {
          region
        }
        returns {
          total
        }
      }
    }
    tags {
      viewerIsFollowing
      id
      name
      pageUrl
    }
    createdAt
    ... on Video {
      liveTime
    }
    ... on Webcast {
      liveTime
    }
    slug
    ... on CompanyReport {
      reportUrl
    }
    ... on ThirdPartyCompanyReport {
      reportUrl
    }
    ... on StockExchangeRelease {
      reportUrl
    }
    ...ContentBasicInfo
    ...ContentMetadata
    ...PriceAndRecommendation_Content
    ...CompanyDetails_Content
    ...ReportLink_Content
    ...KeyFigures_Content
  }
  ...TrendingContent_1jQ2Cn
}

fragment ForumPosts on ForumPost {
  text
  likesCount
  url
  author
  postedAt
  authorImgUrl
}

fragment KeyFigures_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  companies {
    defaultInstrument {
      estimateData {
        modelType
        reportingCurrency
      }
      snapshot {
        transaction {
          date
          actualized {
            year
            quarter
            revenue
            revenueGrowth
            ebitAdjusted
            ebitReported
            ebitda
            enterpriseValue
            epsAdjusted
            dividend
            dividendYield
            sharePrice
            nav
            navPerShare
            opexOfNav
            quarterlySharePrice
          }
          estimates {
            year
            quarter
            revenue
            revenueGrowth
            ebitAdjusted
            ebitReported
            ebitda
            enterpriseValue
            epsAdjusted
            dividend
            dividendYield
            sharePrice
            nav
            navPerShare
            opexOfNav
            quarterlySharePrice
          }
        }
      }
      id
    }
    id
  }
}

fragment PriceAndRecommendation_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  createdAt
  companies {
    name
    pageUrl
    defaultInstrument {
      priceData {
        tradeCurrency
      }
      snapshot {
        priceData {
          date
          lastPrice
          tradeCurrency
        }
        transaction {
          date
          recommendation
          targetPrice
        }
        prevTransaction {
          recommendation
        }
      }
      id
    }
    id
  }
}

fragment PublishingDetails on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  createdAt
  publishers {
    name
    imgUrl
  }
  authors {
    __typename
    id
    name
    slug
    imgUrl
    jobTitle
  }
  ... on Video {
    liveTime
  }
  ... on Webcast {
    liveTime
  }
}

fragment Reactions on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  id
  reactionGroups {
    reactionType
    reactionsCount
    viewerReacted
  }
}

fragment ReportLink_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  type
  isPremium
  ... on CompanyReport {
    reportUrl
  }
  ... on ThirdPartyCompanyReport {
    reportUrl
  }
  ... on StockExchangeRelease {
    reportUrl
  }
}

fragment TrendingContent_1jQ2Cn on Query {
  trendingContent(type: ARTICLE) {
    __typename
    id
    title
    lang
    pageUrl
    createdAt
    type
    imgUrl
    companies {
      squareLogoUrl
      name
      id
    }
    authors {
      __typename
      imgUrl
      id
    }
    publishers {
      imgUrl
    }
  }
}


dnb-carnegie-access-faron-pharmaceuticals-capital-raise-announcement-adds-uncertainty

__typename

title

isPremium

lang

htmlBody

summary

companies

createdAt

publishers

authors

reactionGroups

pageUrl

translations

imgUrl

description

Faron is a global, clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focused on tackling cancers via novel immunotherapies. Its mission is to bring the promise of immunotherapy to a broader population by uncovering novel ways to control and harness the power of the immune system. The Company's lead asset is bexmarilimab, a novel anti-Clever-1 humanized antibody, with the potential to remove immunosuppression of cancers through reprogramming myeloid cell function. Bexmarilimab is being investigated in Phase I/II clinical trials as a potential therapy for patients with hematological cancers in combination with other standard treatments.

MSM’s weekly comment:  “Among the week’s other losers, Faron Pharma suffered a brutal 60 per cent drop after unveiling plans to raise €40 million.  The reaction appears disproportionate given the drug developer intends to use the new investment to advance its blood cancer treatment bexmarilimab into later-stage clinical trials, a necessary step that could deliver long-term returns.” In my opinion, a fairly sensible comment from the big world to the big world.

Well, I didn’t say that we would end up in a Bex vs. Bex situation, but considering the goal of the study, a Bex+Aza vs. Ven+Aza setup is just as detrimental. In a study aiming to determine the efficacy of Bex, there can only be one variable, and that is Bex. If the control group is given something else in addition to Aza, then the results for groups A and B will differ even if neither group receives Bex. If Bex is removed from the equation, there should be two groups of patients left who receive exactly the same medication. If we wanted to study whether Bex is better than Ven (i.e., the practical difference), comparing study results would show that. However, Bex’s trials cannot be compromised by giving the control group Ven in addition to Aza, because then no one will know what causes the differences.

The company’s interest is what matters. Apparently, Dekkers is still needed, so he still has time – if and when there is no added value, he will likely leave immediately. Now, this market bad will is weighing so heavily on Faron that I bet Jurrian’s best-before date is around the day of the Annual General Meeting. ¨  This company’s paths, both forward and backward, are indeed unexplored and foggy. It makes this story completely exceptional in my own investment history. There is no compass of experience…

This is a sharp opinion and, for now, an unproven state of affairs. As I understand it, the diseases studied in Bexmab are all ones where Bex could mechanistically work. Myeloid blasts have high Clever-1 expression. However, encouraging results were mainly obtained in MDS. But here comes the problem when the entire trial starts to be viewed as several sub-parts. In this case, the probability that a positive result occurs by chance in at least some subgroup is emphasized. Faron hasn’t explained more deeply the basis for why specifically MDS is the one where the drug would be particularly effective vs. other Clever-1 expressing blood cancers. The explanation might still be hidden somewhere in the depths of Maija’s laboratory publications. And of course, one must “go towards the signal,” but in my opinion, the signal should have been looked at from Bexmab as a whole (go/no-go, would better added value have been available from PD1 drug combination trials, for example).  There was so much discussion about this that the core has likely been lost already. So, cCR is not even an endpoint according to IWG2023, which Zeidan himself authored. And the FDA requires endpoints that have been prospectively shown to be related to the benefit received by the patient. Composite CR likely circulated in press releases because it sounds good and reporting it yields a high % figure. It would only have been an actual error if it had been implemented in the study. This was followed by an FDA consultation where the endpoint was redesigned. But it told me that Faron (CMO first and foremost) doesn’t have a perfectly sharp understanding of the design of these trials.  It is quite true that we don’t know what kind of results a different, less aggressive strategy, for example, would have brought, so it’s hard to say anything for certain. And it’s true that piloting a First North biotech through the valley of death while pleasing all stakeholders is likely an impossible task. There needs to be a touch of “American style,” strong belief and promises are needed, accepting the managed risk that one can fall from a great height. But I wonder if the strategy has been aggressive in all respects. Has Faron done everything possible to scrape together equity financing when the valuation was high? Why is Syrjälä the only institutional-grade anchor in this project?  This is quite tricky now; Juho seemed to confuse the listeners. There were at least 3 reasons for the failure of the OS endpoint in the Verona trial: 1. the drug’s efficacy was too weak vs its adverse effects 2. post-protocol treatments, i.e., the trial setting for some subjects became “aza+ven now vs aza+ven later” 3. functional unblinding, meaning doctors could conclude with such high certainty from the side effects who received vene and who didn’t that they dared to start venetoclax on top of the “venetoclax placebo,” so the comparison was essentially aza+ven vs aza+ven. Of these, 1 is drug-related, not design-related. 2 is normal in cancer research (a “lots of water under the bridge” situation, where there is so much time between the intervention and the endpoint that treatments following the study intervention carry the most weight). 3 is a real problem, especially when it’s so obvious that doctors take the risk of dosing venetoclax on top of a presumed placebo. If this were a misjudgment and the patient was already receiving venetoclax, they would get a double dose which could be fatal… And in any case, 3 completely dilutes the research design. Then, how the aforementioned factors would jeopardize Bex’s trial specifically in the OS comparison might not be as straightforward as Juho explained, because bex is not an approved drug, so points 2 and 3 cannot occur in the sense that we would end up in a bex vs bex setting. But we could end up in a bex+aza vs aza+ven setting. But that would even be desirable, because the setup would then study as well as possible what happens in practice. This is the purpose of a phase 3 study, and this is about Intention To Treat analysis. It must also be noted that the OS endpoint could benefit bex in many ways. Biomechanistically, one could think that as bex activates long-lasting adaptive immune responses (I don’t know if there is research evidence for long-term ones yet), the response persists for a long time and would be seen specifically as a survival benefit. Secondly, as Zeidan or one of the KOLs said, bex could work as a “bridge therapy” to bone marrow transplant. With an Intention To Treat protocol, “everything counts,” meaning those who received a transplant are not censored in the analyses. In this case, the Bex group would likely benefit significantly in the OS comparison because getting a transplant on average brings a lot of additional survival time—after all, it’s the only curative treatment! The CR endpoint doesn’t capture this benefit at all. Also, focusing on the CR endpoint now doesn’t save from protocol deviations, such as giving venetoclax. But that applies to both groups. It’s very hard to say what the net effect is if the phase 3 endpoint is CR vs OS. It’s clear that the trial is shorter and cheaper. But in light of the information so far, I would understand that the chances for a win would be better with OS. I’m leaning slightly towards disappointment here. But anyway, it seems certain only for the phase 2 CR, for which it fits perfectly. The decision on phase 3 will be finalized later.  Thank you, I wear the title with pride. My bearishness started purely from the valuation and gained momentum from the opposition I encountered, which sort of drove me into this role. The valuation has now been reset, but regarding the results, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Many of my anticipations are still open. If previously Faron’s valuation was based on the equation (results + execution + financing outlook with a strong Syrjälä-backbone + expectations of a value-creating licensing deal), now the valuation is, in my view, more purely worth the results. At the same time, it must be noted that the lower the valuation is, the more “unstable” it becomes, as biotech financing rounds are large. On Nasdaq, many biotechs similar to Faron have been seen after Covid, valued at cash or even below it. Gubrick isn’t talking about the death spiral for nothing. To continue helping other investors with this in the future, however, there would be reason to try to break free from the permabear status. But what do I know, objective self-assessment is probably impossible by definition. I’m starting to look at this mostly neutrally. But I’m not buying to bet on the outcome of the share issue. I’m more interested in the data Faron provides. I look at it critically/skeptically, and I would hope for much more detailed reporting. One could take a model from the better biotechs on Nasdaq. But regarding the valuation, I am neutral. Perhaps the market will still give me a place to strike here one day. Now it is closer than ever before. Not investment advice.

Indeed. I personally don’t understand why Dekkers’ sale should be swept under the rug now. We are in Finland, not the Netherlands.

Wow, that’s quite a plot twist, doing a 40m rights issue, although it certainly didn’t come out of the blue. Who would toot their own horn if not themselves.  Value creation also occurs in a situation where funding is secured. I argue that Faron has a discount due to funding uncertainty, which will disappear once we get certainty on how phase 3 will be funded. So the situation is an x% probability of a partner deal, and y% probability of a funding crisis and equity-based financing from a weak position. The favorable window for raising equity-based financing is kind of gone already, if it’s not somehow linked to that deal.  For me, Jurriaan’s reduction served as a warning sign, and I cashed out my disproportionately large stack immediately upon that announcement. You have to know a bit about Dutch culture to understand that there’s no kitchen renovation coming up; if you have 8k of your own money tied up, you’d be a fool not to take your money out. There are no “company men” there; self-interest is what matters. Even though I avoided this bomb, I’ll also state that my investment thesis for this company has now been reset since the next phase is also being done through self-funding, and I no longer want to carry any more binary risk. (Maybe age and my life situation are starting to weigh on me) Also, if you look at the 5-year price chart, you can see that buy and hold has not been a winning strategy, but there have been plenty of opportunities for swing trading. I’ve been a Faron permabull, but now the sentiment has shifted and I intend to reduce my participation in this thread. I no longer follow the cancer treatment markets for work, so the topic isn’t as engaging anymore, and with kids, time is more precious, so I can cut back on following a single biotech and maybe just buy ETFs monthly. Good luck to the company though and all the best, but this no longer suits me. Farewell.

If Juho is to be believed, the whole thing fell apart due to the failure of the Verona study and the resulting delay. It’s unlikely that Clark or anyone else foresaw that. Instead, he has frequently warned about excessive valuations and the general risks associated with biotech companies in the research stage, such as Faron. Now, that valuation has taken a major hit.

Faron Pharmaceuticals

DNB Carnegie has published a new commissioned research report on Faron Pharmaceuticals.To access the full report and subscribe to future updates, visit https://access.dnbcarnegie.com/companies...

<div class="mfn-preamble"><p><strong>DNB Carnegie has published a new commissioned research report on Faron Pharmaceuticals.</strong></p></div><div class="mfn-body"><p>To access the full report and subscribe to future updates, visit <a rel="noopener" href="https://access.dnbcarnegie.com/companies/1503">https://access.dnbcarnegie.com/companies/1503</a></p></div><div class="mfn-footer mfn-6fcd5977fc3f"><p><strong class="mfn-heading-1">Information</strong><br>This is a press release from DNB Carnegie. For information about DNB Carnegie commissioned research, see <a rel="noopener" href="https://access.dnbcarnegie.com/">https://access.dnbcarnegie.com/</a>, or contact our commissioned research team at <a rel="noopener" href="mailto:cr@carnegie.se">cr@carnegie.se</a>.</p></div><div class="mfn-footer mfn-about mfn-f597257b14ff"><p><strong class="mfn-heading-1">About Us</strong><br>DNB Carnegie is the leading and independent Nordic investment and private bank. Our operations within Corporate Finance, Securities and Research, Private Banking and Wealth Management are among the market leaders within their respective sectors. Together, they build an unbeatable combination of integrated knowledge, guiding our clients towards better business. DNB Carnegie operates in six countries and has more than 800 employees.</p></div>