image de profil
Thank you for your detailed analysis.
BioNTech is not worth an investment for me. Neither in the short term nor in the long term. There are too many unanswered questions.

Free float of max. 24%. And the repayment of the state investment has not yet been made. They do have cash, but Sahin and Strüngmanns can pull it out very quickly. How is BioNTech's share value supposed to rise?

Product portfolio:
What products does the company have?
Research into mRnA cancer and oncology therapies since 2008, with moderate success to date and no approved drug brought out. Only research stages which, from today's perspective, would not receive approval at all, similar to the Corona-Mrna active ingredient.
Also that the Mrna invention is not even from BioNTech and they only have a right of use.
The loss of patent protection for the mRna active ingredient during the corona period is a risk I'll leave out.

Personally, an investment would be too risky for me.
4
image de profil
@MrMister may be too delicate for you, but somehow I also have the feeling that you haven't looked at it objectively. The mrna technology was only supposed to have breakthroughs 5 to 6 years later and then came the stroke of luck with Corona. This means that with a 2025 filing, Biontech is still perfectly on track. Free float of shares with 20 to 30 % is not abnormal, especially if it is still very founders driven. They didn't go public because they wanted to, but because they needed capital; if they'd had a drug ready immediately, they certainly wouldn't have gone public at that point. The patent dispute is definitely a problem, but in the end it will only be a matter of money.
1
image de profil
@topicswithhead I mean biotech always has failure risks, but I don't know of any biotech company that is as well positioned as Biontech. Maybe Viking and Vertex, but Biontech could be the first company in Germany to break the 50 billion barrier in a long time if only 3 drugs make it to blockbuster status. That is a very conservative calculation. After that you could say Biontech has the best risk to reward ratio in the biotech industry
1
image de profil
@topicswithhead ok, I come from a product development background and worked in a startup myself. The same thing happened with BioNTech. Founded in 2008, went public in Oct 2019, shortly before corona hit. Initial investment by the state already planned in July 2019. At that time, 150 million euros, which then scaled up to 400 million euros, just for 60 employees and a company that had neither patents nor products on the market. Scaling like this only happens on an exit strategy or on a meme basis to scale private cash flow. Anyone familiar with Mrna knows that Mrna-based vaccines are bullshit. It's different with cancer or toxins. But research has not yet reached that stage and the risk of autoimmune deficiency in cancer patients has not yet been investigated in detail. I think the benefits of Mrna are very good, but it will be years before the first Mrna substance against cancer comes out. The first drugs against cancer without chemotherapy will be released as early as 2025, but not by BioNTech. Amgen is a candidate.
And don't forget, every producer will then be allowed to bring out this mrna substance against cancer because the patent for mrna has been revoked.
image de profil
@MrMister The market wouldn't pay so much for mRNA companies if it was bullshit and I don't think mRNA is bullshit either, although I only have a rough understanding of the technology and am not a pharmacist or doctor. I only know it from immunology and cancer courses.
As far as I know, the autoimmune problem has not been specifically confirmed and the patents are only tiny. In the case of corona, patents were allowed by passé and core mRNA technology has partial exemptions or expires, but this hardly affects the company's own IP and especially not the drugs that are then patented again.
1
image de profil
@topicswithhead You're right that the market wouldn't pay as much if it was bullshit, see lithium, IT in the 2000s, real estate in the mid-2000s, etc. It's an idea and I personally think it's a very good one. But the scaling only fits if the cancer diagnoses increase. However, I don't see that as a problem.

The patent for the mrna cancer "vaccine" has been around for a long time. Mrna is the carrier (supplier) and the mrna-based medicine is the drug. Both already exist. The only thing left to do is to test how high the dose is for the respective crab species, which is then done in field studies with test subjects.
If you know how Mrna works, you also know that Mnra can cause autoimmune deficiency very quickly. You don't have to be an immunologist to be able to read and understand. I am not an immunologist either, but I am curious. I think you are the same.
image de profil
I studied immunology and I am already aware of how mRNA vaccines work. mRNA is basically just a blueprint that is then injected into the body, read by the ribosomes and the counterpart is produced. But the first example is also very far-fetched, the stock market likes to overpay and also has black swarn events, but usually only the price comes down and rarely these are then complete failures (Wirecard, Telekom bubble). Autoimmune can be a problem with mrna, but as I said, this cannot simply be applied to every drug. I am aware that it will be higher than with vector vaccinations, but mRNA also has other advantages. I understand what you're getting at and Biontech is just a bet, but that's the case with every biotech company as long as it doesn't have a drug and, above all, works on a newer technology. Crisper is also very old and very little has come out of it, but it's still incredibly interesting.
1
image de profil
@topicswithhead We'll see where it goes in the end. I think cancer research is very important, but I also see a big risk of yield similar to the Covid-19 vaccine.
image de profil
@MrMister I don't disagree with you. I also believe that COVID-19 was a huge mistake, even apart from the vaccines. You still have to look at it apart from the technology. The atom is not evil, but nuclear bombs are
1
image de profil
@topicswithhead I still wonder why it's called nuclear power or the atomic bomb. After all, they are nuclides or atomic nuclei. The whole atom is not split :)
image de profil
@MrMister I am at a loss here