No. of Recommendations: 0
Simply amazing Dave. If you don't mind, I am going to pick through your post, name some stuff I like and make some suggestions.

...what I did was assign a 0-5 point value to the CI, and also to their Research Spending/Clinical Index, in an effort to determine which companies were delivering most efficiently. Since I wanted a single number to reflect the companies' strength and efficiency, I then combined the two for a single 0-5 number.

I like the five point system thing, it keeps people from splitting hairs. For instance, if one company does 40 million in research and another 39 million, it would be silly to say they are different. Very nice. I think that will go into the next pipeline. Send me your full name so I can add a credit.

The research spending / clinical index ratio is an interesting idea. The problem here may be that the drugs entered the trials on money long spent. Maybe what we can do is determine the RATE of drugs entering clinical trials and divided that by the amount of research spending during that year? I'll keep mulling it over.

If I follow you correctly Greg, a strong portfolio of patents is important, but the number of PCTs tells us a little more about the future of the company -- and we biotech investors want to be a little more forward-looking. Note in the chart that follows, however, that whether PCTs are given 3 or 5 times their value doesn't matter as far as the rankings of the companies go. Indeed, there is little significant difference how we rank the companies once their Patents and PCTs are combined.

I like the backward looking concept of the PCT's. Part of the problem with PCTs that I didn't make clear (for simplicity) in the pipeline is that each PCT may contain several inventions. At least one, but it may have more. I have not figured out how to handle this yet, except to go through each PCT and count the number of inventions, which may not be easy to do. Perhaps I will try to find an average. US Patents, on the other hand, can contain only a single invention. So more PCTs can mean MANY more inventions. Therefore PCTs should probably be weighted like you did.

I would suggest another number, efficiency of research dollars in gaining patents. Perhaps divided the number of patents issued in a year by the amount spend on research dollars that year.

Anyways, I'll keep perusing your numbers. Feel free to drop by again, man. You obviously have a knack for numerical analysis.

thanks,
Greg



Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.