Well, all my concerns were confirmed last night as I read through the annual report from Aurora. Consistant and dependable revenue, penalty phases, and R&D expenses (albeit, the latter is not even really a blip on my screen).I was hoping to elicate some opinions on those issues and this company in general. Revenue - Can Aurora be profitable even if their customers do not develop drugs as a direct result of using one of Aurora's machines (this would mean Aurora would get royalty payments). Now of course the company says yes, but I just don't see where revenue would come from in the event that the Ultra high blah blah blah just doesn't pan out for Mr. Drug Maker. I guess that's at the heart of it all, isn't it? If Aurora's machines don't do the job, the company is out the door. Comments?Penalties - The annual report confirmed that Aurora is in the penalty phase with Bristol-Meyers and Warner-Lambert. $1,000,000 is a hefty penelty to pay. I am of the opinion that these fees, assuming full amount must be payed, would be a short term set back, indeed. However, the business, more importantly the technology, can recover this money. Comments? Do we know exactly where the penelties stand? Are we approaching penalties for other customers?R&D - Can anyone explain why, really why, R&D costs went DOWN this last year. Seems contrary to what they are doing, or does it?Hey, I'm still long on ABSC, just want to feel it out a little more. Don't we all?
Aurora Annual report shows that this company is one of the few biotechs well on track to sustainable profitability.Revenue - while sales of services, instruments and intellectual properties will be sufficient to achieve profitability, future royalty payments will be the icing on the cake. The continuing stream of licensees (who have done their won DD) indicates the viability of the technology to me.Penalties - delivery of the missing pieces of technology is expected in the second half of 2000. I believe the missing piece for the UHTSS is software integration, and, while unfortunate, a delay on software development is not unusual. Total amount of penalties is not known, but with the amount of money the company has in the bank it is not critical.R&D spending - as explained in the annual report the decrease in spending occurred because expenses were shifted to customer funded programs, i.e. research as such did not decrease. Obviously, this is excellent for the cash position of the company.All in all, things look very good for ABSC, especially for the second half of the year, when final pieces of the technology will get delivered to clients.
If they are in penalty with two of their customers, what about their other customers? I think their other customers are just as savvy and would have penalty phases also. No news is not always good news and wishful thinking will not make it good.Although software development is hard, the customers are paying ABSC to do it and expect timely success. They can't have their cake and eat it too -- either they are going to be successful system integrators on behalf of drug customers, or they are going to fail to deliver, make the customers unhappy, and you know the rest of the story. Place your bets, but only with money you can afford to lose.
bootchk, from your rather general remarks I would conclude that you are short on ABSC. The answer to your negative coments are satisfactorily anwered in recent press releases and earnings. ABSC would not be one of the few profitable biotech companies if it did not deliver what it promises.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |