Taking a Look at $CCCC:
An updated look at C4 Therapeutics.
An updated look at C4 Therapeutics.
1/ Management:
I have been in C4 Therapeutic for about 8 months now. I don't know the CEO Andrew Hirsch all that well. He seems to be doing good so far. The biggest issue I have is with the high level of risk in their strategy.
I have been in C4 Therapeutic for about 8 months now. I don't know the CEO Andrew Hirsch all that well. He seems to be doing good so far. The biggest issue I have is with the high level of risk in their strategy.
2/ They are highly focused on using Protein Degraders in already very proven indications and targets. This means they will have to show strong superiority over current therapies on efficacy or safety to really stand of chance of capturing any market share.
3/ This is a high risk strategy vs other companies that are focused on pioneering new science with little competition.
4/ Science:
They are using Targeted Protein Degradation. They are using both mono functional and heterobifunctional degraders. This does give them some versatility in how they go after each target.
They are using Targeted Protein Degradation. They are using both mono functional and heterobifunctional degraders. This does give them some versatility in how they go after each target.
5/ They are focused with their lead drug for IKZF1/3 which is very much the same as original IMIDs like Pomalidomide. The early data does seem to have much more potency at much lower doses.
6/ We will have to see the data to see what kind of difference that makes. Their other indications are BRAF and EFGR. There is room here if they can hit the same or better efficacy with lower levels of toxicity as many kinase inhibitors do have side effects.
7/ It will all come down to the data. I have to say there is a concern here at TPD can surpass TKI for safety and efficacy. That has yet to be established, but I know Blueprint just announced a partnership to get access to TPD for their discovery programs.
8/ Potential:
They have a lot of potential if they can capture a decent level of market share vs some of these current block buster drugs. The IKZF1/3 program could have effects in many of the blood cancers like NHL or even Multiple Myeloma.
They have a lot of potential if they can capture a decent level of market share vs some of these current block buster drugs. The IKZF1/3 program could have effects in many of the blood cancers like NHL or even Multiple Myeloma.
9/ That could be worth $2 billion or more if they can surpass some of the other therapies in this space. The BRAF space has been very successful in Melanoma which could be worth over $1 billion in potential should it do as well as some of the other BRAF inhibitors.
10/ The EFGR indications are very big with Osimertinib doing upward of $5 billion a year in revenues.
11/ Value:
The company looks cheap at just over $1.1 billion market cap. They have $451 million in cash and burned $84 million in 2021. They have plenty of cash to last them a few years as they start to move programs into clinical trials.
The company looks cheap at just over $1.1 billion market cap. They have $451 million in cash and burned $84 million in 2021. They have plenty of cash to last them a few years as they start to move programs into clinical trials.
12/ The big value driver here will be data. Any data that suggests superiority over current therapies could really drive the value. This is a higher risk, higher reward play.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
