Author Topic: PACB - Pacific Biosciences of California  (Read 6545 times)

FF4F

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: PACB - Pacific Biosciences of California
« Reply #30 on: July 19, 2019, 07:09:49 AM »
But i think that was published like 22 hours ago, so known yesterday?

In small-cap land I am generally sceptical of 'leaked insider info'. Usually its just noise. Given that this is a much larger company, I have less conviction that also holds this time, but what do I know.


Could not help myself - count me in as a future bagholder. Bought a small position.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 07:35:30 AM by FF4F »


Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
Re: PACB - Pacific Biosciences of California
« Reply #31 on: July 19, 2019, 08:04:17 AM »
Probably worth taking another stab after this, although Im holding tight. Dont really want anything to do with this other than to see the outcome and sell either way once its revealed.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d307b9ded915d2fe8096fb8/Illumina_PacBio_Full_textP1_Redacted.pdf
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 08:08:23 AM by Gregmal »

SHDL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
Re: PACB - Pacific Biosciences of California
« Reply #32 on: July 19, 2019, 10:52:00 AM »
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d307b9ded915d2fe8096fb8/Illumina_PacBio_Full_textP1_Redacted.pdf

Quickly skimmed through the document.  I somehow get the sense that the regulators are basically saying “we’re gonna say no to this because Illumina is such a dominant player and their internal docs and 3rd parties suggest they’re trying to use this acquisition to solidify their monopolistic position; and yeah we’ve seen the data and numbers they gave us but we’re not gonna put much emphasis on that because those are all about the past and the industry is changing quickly.”  Leaving aside the question as to whether they’re being reasonable or not, that sounds like a hard position for the merging parties and their lawyers to effectively argue against. 

More broadly, I see this as further confirmation that the antitrust regulators are really changing their views.  AFIAK, these types of mergers used to go through without much discussion until not too long ago.

On the positive side though, if the regulators are right about the potential of PacBio’s new product (Sequel II), it is not inconceivable that the company gets acquired by a different competitor or even starts doing well on their own.  So there’s probably a price at which this becomes a buy. 
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 12:41:46 PM by SHDL »

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
Re: PACB - Pacific Biosciences of California
« Reply #33 on: July 19, 2019, 12:33:57 PM »
Its becoming more hostile for sure, but there is nothing wrong, or illegal with one trying to buy other companies to protect their market position. I could start up a business and overpay for competitors with the intention of creating or protecting a monopoly. But at the end of the day it is not that simple and certain conditions have to exist for something to be predatory and a detriment to competition.

Its hard to make the case that Pac Bio will be successful as a stand-alone business. Its easier to make the case that ILMN is a monopoly like player, but you can do that with or without PACB. Mr. de Souza even discussed recently how the PACB deal really just added a complimentary product, and that this isn't somewhere they currently compete.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 12:46:58 PM by Gregmal »

scorpioncapital

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1775
    • scorpion capital
Re: PACB - Pacific Biosciences of California
« Reply #34 on: July 19, 2019, 02:28:30 PM »
real power is not being able to be bribed. and why can't pacb sell out their entire UK business and get the deal done? why are they in a country that would rule against them. Go to cz or romania or hungary or ukraine. I am 100% certain they won't give a damn especially after throwing some money around. And that is exactly as business should be.
Too much communism in the west.


Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3415
Re: PACB - Pacific Biosciences of California
« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2019, 06:14:13 AM »
Negative decision from the Brits. Taking my chips off the table at $4.7. The problem with this play is that this company is not viable on a standalone basis. This wasn’t supposed to be that hard.
Life is too short for cheap beer and wine.

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
Re: PACB - Pacific Biosciences of California
« Reply #37 on: October 24, 2019, 07:16:10 AM »
Yea, kinda odd they'd rather keep a quasi competitor on life support, in the game just for show. Thats governments for you. Oh well. Cant win them all.

scorpioncapital

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1775
    • scorpion capital
Re: PACB - Pacific Biosciences of California
« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2019, 08:28:01 AM »
It's bizarre. It's a bit like China no? Pacb cannot go to the equivalent of Vietnam and change its supply chain to close the deal? Or is their entire business with uk Universities?

writser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1986
Re: PACB - Pacific Biosciences of California
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2019, 11:54:45 AM »
For all the bagholders, some interesting reading in the UK 'competition and markets authority' case file: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/illumina-inc-pacific-biosciences-of-california-inc-merger-inquiry#history . Shares are up slightly today after PACB / ILMN submitted a remedies proposal: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dcbc8ba40f0b64250f50116/Remedy_proposal.pdf . The CMA seems very pessimistic. There are two ways around a 'substantial lessening of competition' (SLC): a structural remedy (i.e. divestiture) or a behavioral remedy (i.e. IP licensing to competitors). The CMA asserts:

"At this stage, the only structural remedy that CMA has identified as being likely to be effective would be prohibition of the Proposed Merger"

"The CMA’s current view is that a behavioural remedy on its own is very unlikely to be an effective remedy to the SLC and/or any resulting adverse effects that it has provisionally identified. Given the dynamic nature of the market and the importance of innovation and non-price competition, any behavioural remedy would face acute specification and circumvention risks that would be likely to render it ineffective.".

As a solution Illumina is proposing to give away certain IP licences perpetually for free to competitors. Seems unlikely that that will change the verdict but who am I to judge. Maybe the CMA is playing hardball.
When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid.