LONGECITY

LONDON, PHILADELPHIA AND CAMBRIDGE, Mass., April 22, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall
via COMTEX/ -- GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) and Sirtris Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated (Nasdaq: SIRT) announced today that they have entered into a
definitive agreement pursuant to which GlaxoSmithKline will acquire Sirtris
Pharmaceuticals for approximately USD720 million (or approx. GBP362 million)
through a cash tender offer of USD22.50 (or approx. GBP11.33) per share.

Through the acquisition of Sirtris, GSK will significantly enhance its
metabolic, neurology, immunology and inflammation research efforts by
establishing a presence in the field of sirtuins, a recently discovered class of
enzymes that are believed to be involved in the ageing process. Sirtris
Pharmaceuticals has established a drug discovery capability to exploit sirtuin
modulation for the treatment of human disease, an approach that has the
potential to generate multiple clinically and commercially important products.
Their focus to date has been on the development of SIRT1 activators for the
treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM).

"Modulation of this family of enzymes is a potentially transformative science
that could address diseases associated with metabolism and ageing such as
diabetes, muscle wasting, and neurodegeneration," commented Moncef Slaoui,
Chairman GSK R&D. "This acquisition continues GSK's strategy of pursuing the
best new science, externally or internally, to bring new medicines to patients
and value to the GSK pipeline. Our intent is to retain all Sirtris employees and
continue the entrepreneurial and innovative culture they created."

Sirtris will become part of GSK's Drug Discovery organisation, while continuing
to operate from laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts as an autonomous drug
discovery unit. Christoph Westphal, CEO and Vice Chair of Sirtris and the
management team will continue to lead this autonomous unit.

Dr. Westphal commented, "We have built a dynamic and scientifically-driven
organisation. We expect this transaction will accelerate our vision to target
sirtuins to treat diseases of metabolism and ageing and deliver tremendous value
to patients, our shareholders and our employees. We look forward to working with
GlaxoSmithKline and their world-class research, development and
commercialisation organisation."

Under the agreement, a subsidiary of GSK will commence a cash tender offer to
purchase all of the outstanding shares of Sirtris, at USD22.50 (or approx.
GBP11.33) per share followed by a second step merger in which any untendered
Sirtris shares would be acquired at the same price per share. All outstanding
stock options will be cancelled with holders receiving the excess of the
transactions price over the exercise price. The acquisition has been approved by
the board of directors of each company and is subject to customary closing
conditions, including the tender of at least a majority of Sirtris's shares and
clearance under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. The parties
anticipate that the tender offer will be commenced in early May and close in the
second quarter of 2008.

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 22 April 2008 - 08:52 PM.

OMFG.

OMFG.

Holy Cow Batman $22.50!

OMFG.

Holy Cow Batman $22.50!

Nice profit- oughta pay for my t-resvertrol for a while, anyway!

Nice, that is about the best thing that could have happened to shareholders, congrats.

Amazing news, truly the best that could happen and certainly validates a lot of what we've been proselytizing. I'm sure the Sirtris folks are having a big party right now!!! ;-)

Amazing news, truly the best that could happen and certainly validates a lot of what we've been proselytizing. I'm sure the Sirtris folks are having a big party right now!!! ;-)

Guess this stock wasn't as risky as some had said.

Guess this stock wasn't as risky as some had said.

Just because the bet came in as a winner does not mean it was a good bet. Also, if you lose money on a bet that doesnt mean it was a bad bet. If you do not understand that, you do not understand risk and/or probability.

Guess this stock wasn't as risky as some had said.

Just because the bet came in as a winner does not mean it was a good bet. Also, if you lose money on a bet that doesnt mean it was a bad bet. If you do not understand that, you do not understand risk and/or probability.

I disagree. And I understand both.

Guess this stock wasn't as risky as some had said.

Just because the bet came in as a winner does not mean it was a good bet. Also, if you lose money on a bet that doesnt mean it was a bad bet. If you do not understand that, you do not understand risk and/or probability.

I disagree. And I understand both.

It's counter-intuitive, like the Monty Hall paradox. I'll take my winnings off the table and invest my original nut in Glaxo.

Guess this stock wasn't as risky as some had said.

Just because the bet came in as a winner does not mean it was a good bet. Also, if you lose money on a bet that doesnt mean it was a bad bet. If you do not understand that, you do not understand risk and/or probability.

I disagree. And I understand both.

It's counter-intuitive, like the Monty Hall paradox. I'll take my winnings off the table and invest my original nut in Glaxo.

He simply framed my opinion, saying, "Just because the bet came in as a winner does not mean it was a good bet." That's not why I thought it was a good bet. I think it was a good bet for probably many of the same reasons that Glaxo did. The buyout simply reinforces what I have always believed.

1000 coin tosses that result in heads don't make the next toss any different than a 50-50 chance, blah blah blah. Not what I meant. I felt that that Sirtis had been locking up all the patents, making themselves the front door to futher sirtuin research. It seemed a very reasonable bet to be that they would be goggled up.
Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 23 April 2008 - 01:30 AM.

Guess this stock wasn't as risky as some had said.

Just because the bet came in as a winner does not mean it was a good bet. Also, if you lose money on a bet that doesnt mean it was a bad bet. If you do not understand that, you do not understand risk and/or probability.

I disagree. And I understand both.

It's counter-intuitive, like the Monty Hall paradox. I'll take my winnings off the table and invest my original nut in Glaxo.

He simply framed my opinion, saying, "Just because the bet came in as a winner does not mean it was a good bet." That's not why I thought it was a good bet. I think it was a good bet for probably many of the same reasons that Glaxo did. The buyout simply reinforces what I have always believed.

1000 coin tosses that result in heads don't make the next toss any different than a 50-50 chance, blah blah blah. Not what I meant. I felt that that Sirtis had been locking up all the patents, making themselves the front door to futher sirtuin research. It seemed a very reasonable bet to be that they would be goggled up.

I think you misunderstood me. Sometimes the result of a toss makes the subsequent probabilities much different than 50:50. Google "Monty Hall Paradox" you'll see what I mean.

Guess this stock wasn't as risky as some had said.

Just because the bet came in as a winner does not mean it was a good bet. Also, if you lose money on a bet that doesnt mean it was a bad bet. If you do not understand that, you do not understand risk and/or probability.

I disagree. And I understand both.

It's counter-intuitive, like the Monty Hall paradox. I'll take my winnings off the table and invest my original nut in Glaxo.

He simply framed my opinion, saying, "Just because the bet came in as a winner does not mean it was a good bet." That's not why I thought it was a good bet. I think it was a good bet for probably many of the same reasons that Glaxo did. The buyout simply reinforces what I have always believed.

1000 coin tosses that result in heads don't make the next toss any different than a 50-50 chance, blah blah blah. Not what I meant. I felt that that Sirtis had been locking up all the patents, making themselves the front door to futher sirtuin research. It seemed a very reasonable bet to be that they would be goggled up.

I think you misunderstood me. Sometimes the result of a toss makes the subsequent probabilities much different than 50:50. Google "Monty Hall Paradox" you'll see what I mean.

I was responding to the first guy. I am familiar with the Monty Hall Paradox. A great party game. Can go for hours.

If I toss a coin 9 times, and I get 9 heads, on the tenth toss, what is the probability of a head? Alot has to do with the way the experiment is explained. Most don't explain the Monty Hall correctly.

I have to say I am very disappointed with this deal. I doubled my money but I was really hoping for a 5 or 10 bagger. Holding GSK, a 116 billion dollar company is not going to be nearly as profitable. The good news is it should speed up research. The bad news is I'll have to work longer to support the extra years in retirement. ; )

I have to say I am very disappointed with this deal. I doubled my money but I was really hoping for a 5 or 10 bagger. Holding GSK, a 116 billion dollar company is not going to be nearly as profitable. The good news is it should speed up research. The bad news is I'll have to work longer to support the extra years in retirement. ; )

With any luck, GSK will provide money, their compound bank, and high throughput screening resources, and otherwise stay out of the way and not corrupt the Sirtris culture. Or things could go the other way... GSK has somewhat gotten its act together relative to the nadir of the post-merger era, but all things considered, I would take the money and run. -Just my H.O.

I have to say I am very disappointed with this deal. I doubled my money but I was really hoping for a 5 or 10 bagger. Holding GSK, a 116 billion dollar company is not going to be nearly as profitable. The good news is it should speed up research. The bad news is I'll have to work longer to support the extra years in retirement. ; )

With any luck, GSK will provide money, their compound bank, and high throughput screening resources, and otherwise stay out of the way and not corrupt the Sirtris culture. Or things could go the other way... GSK has somewhat gotten its act together relative to the nadir of the post-merger era, but all things considered, I would take the money and run. -Just my H.O.

It beats a poke in the eye.

I have to say I am very disappointed with this deal. I doubled my money but I was really hoping for a 5 or 10 bagger. Holding GSK, a 116 billion dollar company is not going to be nearly as profitable. The good news is it should speed up research. The bad news is I'll have to work longer to support the extra years in retirement. ; )

You got the point velopismo!!

http://sirtuininvestor.blogspot.com/
Edited by markymark, 23 April 2008 - 06:51 AM.

The main downside I see for us is that we are less likely to get any further information on SIRT501 and their NCEs. At least GSK is less likely to be public about it whereas Sirtris, as a small independent company was more likely to publish in journals in order to gain credibility, VC capital, etc, etc.

Whenever I go to a scientific company, the big pharma presentations are like "We fed compound #31752 to 20 rats and saw life extension...." with no structures or other info....

So true malbecman!

I have to say, Merck does the same...

A

My re-allocation of SIRT stock sale funds: Some for fun! Some for municipal bonds (re-balance portfolio). Some for GERN (another role of the dice!)

Congratulations to those who invest in SIRT...I have been recommending the stock to others, although I never bought....obviously, I wish I had. But I don't have time to invest in stocks right now.

Congratulations to those who invest in SIRT...I have been recommending the stock to others, although I never bought....obviously, I wish I had. But I don't have time to invest in stocks right now.

I had 500 at 10.76, sold yesterday for 22.30. Its too bad I didnt have any more free cash floating around at the time the price was where I wanted it. :(

Looks like glaxo is pretty cheap atm, but I really need to do my own dd before reinvesting my gains into them.

Goddammit. Nothing seems to crush innovation and customer appreciation like being incorporated into a large multinational. Beforehand, we could rely on the personalities of the people involved. Unfortunately Glaxo is basically a psychotic corporation more interested in the bottomline, regardless of potential.

We're not going to get any good data now. Crap.

Goddammit. Nothing seems to crush innovation and customer appreciation like being incorporated into a large multinational. Beforehand, we could rely on the personalities of the people involved. Unfortunately Glaxo is basically a psychotic corporation more interested in the bottomline, regardless of potential.

We're not going to get any good data now. Crap.

Maybe and maybe not. Sirtris will remain as an independant unit of Glaxo, run by the founders.

One of the main Glaxo cash cows was Avandia. Since it was reported
that it increased cardiovascular events and bone fractures, sales of
Avandia were dropping like a rock. Glaxo stocks went down 14%
recently.
Glaxo had to show the annalists that it had good prospects coming down
the pipeline, to prop up the stock. By buying Sirtris they are getting a very effective
public relations team. Annalists are easily impressed by things like:
"a thousand times more potent!!!". It even worked on ImmInst members.

I was looking forward to having a lot of open-source studies in effectiveness. :(

Sirtris will remain as an independant unit of Glaxo, run by the founders.

The founders will be out within a year, two years at max.

People who launch startups, particularly successful ones, typically do not do well at large multi-billion dollar corporations. For example, Westphal started two other companies which are now publicly traded; he didn't stick around at those, when he probably could have been in charge. Why would he stay at GSK and be under the thumb of some turf-protecting, process-loving sr. vp. of something, who doesn't care about or is resentful of the new kid on the block? He will chafe at the bureaucracy, and either be bored out of his mind spending 80% of his time in useless meetings and/or frustrated beyond belief within a year, and then be off to the next startup.

From the press release:

All outstanding stock options will be cancelled with holders receiving the excess of the transactions price over the exercise price.

I would imagine most founders are fully vested, or close. So there is very little if any financial incentive for the founders (and possibly many other employees) to stick around as well, at least for more than a year or two.

My prediction is that SIRT501 will probably see the light of day as a product since it seems fairly far along, but none of the other stuff they are working on will ever make it out, as the brain drain kills the innovation.

I think SIRT bungled by selling out too soon, and GSK bungled by buying the whole company. GSK should have acquired a minority interest (say, 40%) for $300-400 million along with some exclusive marketing rights for drugs that are developed by SIRT. This would provide security to SIRT, and incentive for everyone to stay and innovate, and also provide GSK with a product pipeline, which seems to be what they are buying SIRT for.

Can you tell I don't like the deal?

Herein we find out if Big Pharma will ever develop a viable cure for aging ... :(

Congratulations to those who invest in SIRT...I have been recommending the stock to others, although I never bought....obviously, I wish I had. But I don't have time to invest in stocks right now.

god, i did the same thing in a stocks thread on another forum almost a year ago. i should have put my money where my mouth is