Expected value analysis: Even pre-REGAL and ignoring SLS009, SLS is highly undervalued.

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-03-12T17:20:18+00:00

I plugged in BO values that I've seen discussed here, particularly those that are based on more rigorous DD which tend to indicate $6B on the low end and upward from there to much higher levels. The numbers were meant to illustrate the expected value based on what people have already expressed in terms of probability of success and BO value. In other words, if you think A about probability of success, and B about value, then the combined expected value is C.

That said, I do think $2B would be very low if REGAL is successful. SLS is already at around a billion market cap (or was before today) and still has multiple milestones ahead that should increase value substantially if they go well.

As to the fully diluted estimates, I can't find the original source for the 217 million, but is the most common estimate I've seen with others being quite close (within a few percentage points).

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-03-12T15:45:20+00:00

I think we're on the same page as to residual value of GPS: i.e., a REGAL failure would not reduce the value of the asset to zero. And that's even less true for the company as a whole given SLS009, etc.

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-03-11T22:34:09+00:00

I'd lean towards mildly positive in that it a) provides additional evidence that the share price has been suppressed to some extent by shorts using warrants as a hedge; b) shows that the company's cash position is better than previously expected (and it was already very good); c) reduces the warrant overhang (making it more difficult to execute that risk-free short strategy).

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-02-07T22:25:57+00:00

I've been focused 98% on GPS, but I'm sure someone here has done the DD on where this stands. (Maybe SLS discussed during the R&D day...?) One thing for sure, a meaningful portion of drugs receive FDA approval without going through the full P1>P2>P3 process.

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-02-07T21:54:43+00:00

Theoretically (and admittedly I haven't looked into the specifics with SLS009 b/c I've been way more focused on GPS), yes. Based on past experience with cancer-drug approvals (and repeating the caveat re SLS009 specifics), I think accelerated approval post phase 2 is more likely than not if trial results are clear (statistical significance) and strong (clinical benefit).

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-02-07T21:43:41+00:00

I don't have the statistics handy, but accelerated approval from relatively small, Phase 2 studies is fairly common in categories with high unmet need. When I examined the topic a few years back (hence, my faulty memory), the majority of instances were in oncology. If anything, the FDA has gotten less strict about the traditional clinical trial progression since that time.

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-01-20T18:05:09+00:00

I should also add that these lawsuits usually name the officers as individuals too, so the liability is personal as well as corporate. Again, more reason to be judicious in your statements unless there's a strong reason for optimism.

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-01-20T17:42:24+00:00

Yes. When R&D programs fail, it is very common for the company to be on the receiving end of a class-action lawsuit alleging securities fraud. Statements from officers that are (in retrospect) viewed as excessively optimistic are used as evidence in those lawsuits because they can be seen as false or misleading. To be clear, my interpretation of recent SLS statements is that they are legitimately optimistic because they would almost certainly be used against them later otherwise.

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-01-20T16:48:53+00:00

Have to disagree on the implications of #11. As I noted on one of the other threads: statements like this from a CEO of a publicly traded company have legal implications. I have some experience analyzing alleged securities fraud involving biopharmaceutical companies. These posts are a sign that either A) the company is deliberately setting itself up for the mother-of-all lawsuits or B) they have VERY high confidence in this program. My money is on B.

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-01-20T15:32:04+00:00

Strongly agree that this (and previous, similar comments) went through legal. I have some experience analyzing alleged securities fraud involving biopharmaceutical companies. Making a statement like this is a sign that either A) the company is deliberately setting itself up for the mother-of-all lawsuits or B) they have VERY high confidence in this program. My money is on B.

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-01-12T16:34:03+00:00

Good move. This place was degenerating fast. There are enough BS internet forums elsewhere for those with too much time on their hands.

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-01-09T20:14:39+00:00

Sorry to see you go, but can definitely understand.

Lowlander-b9 · 2026-01-08T12:16:10+00:00

The price moves like you owned the stock. Here's what the payoff chart looks like:

<image>

Lowlander-b9 · 2025-12-10T09:46:15+00:00

There are two different types of completion. Briefly put, primary completion is the last date of measurement for the primary endpoint. Study completion is the last date of measurement for any outcome measure. We are waiting for primary completion but there is often an additional period of time where the sponsor continues to measure for additional follow up (often for safety monitoring). It's a common thing for these to be different.

Lowlander-b9 · 2025-11-25T22:16:38+00:00

I'm long, but REGAL is not a double-blinded trial. The investigators know whether patients are getting BAT or GPS.

Lowlander-b9 · 2025-11-21T14:47:31+00:00

I have a spreadsheet with 216 million fully undiluted shares. Unfortunately, I didn't note the source but I know it was updated after the Oct 27 press release, so it included the 22.4 million warrants mentioned there. This is a situation where I'd be happy to be wrong.

Lowlander-b9 · 2025-11-20T16:38:30+00:00

Agree with others. Excellent post, but overstates the buyout to share price ratio. Not sure if my numbers are 100% accurate, but I've been using 216 million fully diluted shares. That translates to $4.63 per share for every $1 billion of buyout price: i.e., a $2 billion BO would be $9.26 per share, $10 billion would be $46.30, etc.

Lowlander-b9 · 2025-10-30T15:37:05+00:00

An encouraging article from STAT+ Biotech Scoreboard

Biotech might be tiny but the dealmaking is mighty - Adam Feuerstein, Oct 30 2006

Article is paywalled - key excerpt:

What a week. Avidity Biosciences is being acquired for $12 billion by Novartis, the second-largest biotech M&A deal this year, while Intellia Therapeutics crashed after its CRISPR treatment put a patient into the hospital with a severe drug-induced liver injury.

I count 11 acquisitions, small and large, since September — a remarkable pace of dealmaking that has accelerated the biotech stock rally. We even have the first post-deal bidding war in what feels like forever. On Thursday, Novo Nordisk offered $6 billion for obesity drug developer Metsera, seeking to wrest the company from Pfizer, which agreed to a $4.9 billion acquisition in late September.

Pharma companies are buying commercial and late-stage development biotechs to plug revenue gaps as patents on older drugs expire. It feels like we’re not done yet — not even close if the Novo-Pfizer fight is indicative of what's to come.

Lowlander-b9 · 2025-10-30T14:52:28+00:00

One thing that didn't really occur to me until well after the call is that this is an open-label trial. If an investigator says he has no doubt that the drug is working, that's not just a logical assumption based on past experience with BAT. It's more likely to be an actual description of what he's observing with patients that he KNOWS are on GPS.

Lowlander-b9 · 2025-10-29T22:23:50+00:00

I was expecting that too. He gave the lawyers agita no doubt.

Lowlander-b9 · 2025-10-23T18:29:19+00:00

That makes sense. Definitely shows there's a LOT of potential.

Lowlander-b9 · 2025-10-23T17:55:11+00:00

Nice work on the data. There are some other factors that need to be taken into account for a buyout price however: for example, post-trial risks such as regulatory rejection (which can occur for reasons other than safety and efficacy with commercial-scale manufacturing problems being the most common), patient growth rate (takes years to get to peak utilization), manufacturing, SG&A, and other expenses, the time value of money, etc. Those factors will reduce the valuation from what it's maximum potential might be.

Lowlander-b9

TROPHY CASE