Ducks in sewerage treatment works, drug resistance, dumb luck and investing
The day the swine flu story broke in the global press I wrote up for the blog a possible influenza hedge. It was a stock I thought would make money – but I did not really want to win big on. It would be nice to profit – but not because of mass influenza deaths.
Biota Holdings is an Australian small-molecule drug development company whose core asset is that they own a 7 percent royalty on all sales of Relenza. Relenza is a distant number two influenza antiviral drug. As explained in the original post the drug is taken through a “turbo-inhaler” which is less marketable than a tablet – but more marketable than an injection. The difficulties taking Relenza meant that Tamiflu dominated the market.
The story I posted was nuanced and accurate. It was only possible to write that story because I had followed Biota before the Swine Flu outbreak and had been considering purchasing the stock anyway. Swine Flu forced the decision.
In our quarterly client letter I wrote a follow up story which I think deserves a wider circulation.
Firstly our clients were really lucky. Whereas personally I purchased the stock the day the swine flu outbreak happened our clients purchased a few weeks later. Why? Because we could not purchase the stock for them until we received our Australian Financial Services License. The following graph shows the advantage that they received:
The lower purchase price (dumb luck) meant the clients purchased more. The very strong Australian dollar has meant that our US based clients have well over doubled their money.
The luck continues
Tamiflu drug resistance (something alluded to in the original post) turned out to be the critical ingredient in the story. It has both policy and investing implications.
In Japan, where Tamiflu is widely prescribed, the active compound (oseltamivir carboxylate) is excreted by the body (in urine) or is activated by the biological processes at the sewerage treatment works itself. Water at and downstream from the sewerage treatment works is high in oseltamivir carboxylate. That is really bad news because birds (especially ducks) like to bathe in the nutrient rich waters. Those ducks are the hosts in which new influenza viruses breed – and because the water is rich in antivirals the Japanese are breeding new strains of Tamiflu resistant influenza. This is not good news because the US government and other drug stockpiles are heavily weighted to Tamiflu – and there is a reasonable chance that the next global flu epidemic will be Tamiflu resistant.
Whilst that is not good news for the world – it is wonderful news for Relenza sales and hence our clients’ position in Biota. And it is nothing that we anticipated. If you told me my blog would wind up being about ducks in Japanese sewerage works I would have laughed. From the perspective of our clients it is plain luck – but that will not stop us profiting from it.
Luck is pervasive in the investing game. We did not figure on Tamiflu being a serious environmental pollutant. It was just as likely that Relenza would be a pollutant. Then, rather than showing profits we would be explaining losses to our clients. A story about ducks in sewerage treatment works causing us losses would not sound plausible (even if true).
Anyone with good investing results who does not admit to a dose of luck is lying. The world is a complex place – and I would never have guessed that ducks in Japanese sewers had anything to do with our portfolio.
Read more at John Hempton's Weblog
















The story about ducks, oseltamivir oxylate and sewage treatment plants in Japan is newsworthy and informative. But the rest of this post is self promotion.
Has Bronte Capital Management Pty Ltd purchased a controlling interest in TPM?
October 2, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know there was some self promotion in it. TPM take my blog feed automatically - but the blog is explicitly the blog of an investment company.
---
I have written this email to TPM...
----
There are a few blog posts on my blog which really are not aimed at a TPM crowd - today for instance - which I would have written very differently for the TPM audience.
Is it possible to work out a way of selectively feeding to TPM? Some I figure are right up your alley - others are not.
I just do not want to waste your readers time.
J
October 2, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the explanation. Having some experience in monitoring drug resistance epidemeology (knowing little of tamiflu resistance, however) establishing a linkage between a particular population of ducks and resistance in human flu strains is a very difficult task. The story right now is little more than a hypothesis based a plausibility assessment.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/47971/title/Excreted_Tamiflu_found_in_rivers
If the affected waters have only 300 nanograms/liter of the excreted tamiflu then it hardly seems like a pharmacologically effective concentration (ie high enough to select for resistance).
But interesting story nevertheless, and stories of less substance have driven stock prices before.
October 2, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also I believe that Zanamivir is currently marketed by GlaxoSmithKline under the trade name Relenza .
October 3, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, we've got it all worked out now - Cafe readers will get Hempton's good stuff that's relevant to TPM. Sorry for the delay, guys.
October 2, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I found this more than a little interesting. A little different take on things. Australian dollars, private enterprise and our 'health care system'.
I need to read an analysis like this more than once in a great while. How can I wish for change if I am not aware of where we started in the first place.
Good post. I wish I had more of a background in this area. All I can do is read those who do.
October 2, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's interesting in other ways too. For example, we've heard of, say, estrogen being present in rivers due to people taking birth control, and are given vague things that may happen because of it (feminization of frogs, for instance?). Here we have a drug that is present in sewage effluent that directly influences resistance of a very troubling disease. I'm not sure how much of the H1N1 resistance, if any, is due to ducks--but just seeing how something can change is quite interesting.
Oh heck, I even liked the stock take on it. (I get a Motley Fool feed.)
October 2, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for working this out, and let me say that I enjoy your posts. Your perspective is appreciated and the information you bring to us is refreshingly different.
October 2, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a missing piece to your story. You do not say if Relanza is excreted through urine also and at what concentrations. If it is also excreted at comparable concentrations (which btw someone mentioned is not enough to pose a serious problem of breeding resistance strains), then there is no reason to believe that Relanza is the answer we are looking for. Could you clarify this point for us?
October 3, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The concentrations are likely to be problematic ONLY in rivers and sewerage treatment works. The water once it gets to the ocean is probably so dilute that it does not matter.
The entire dose winds up in the river - it does not break down and sewerage treatment works remove none of it. Its probably OK in Sydney for instance as there is high grade treatment followed by ocean outfall. China would be the other way around.
There is a nice paper on the web which measures concentrations by a bunch of Swedish scientists.
J
October 3, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
My question was: you have two competing vaccines. The preferred one has this drawback that it can lead to residtant strains. My only question was does the alternative have the same problem.
October 3, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The answer is that it probably does. But this is also true for every antibiotic ever used in medicine. Use one until resistance makes it obsolete then move on to another. Repeat cycle. While they are effective the product will be profitable.
October 3, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The daily human dosage for tamiflu is 75mg. The average duck weighs about 4 lbs or 2 to 3% of an adult human so an effective dose for a duck would be say 2 mg or 2000 microgram or 2 million nanograms. If the concentration of tamiflu in those waters are 300 ng/l then the duck would need to drink about 5000 to 20,000 liters of water daily to ingest an effective dose.
I don't think this is possible.
October 3, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Syvanen - it looks to be quite well documented. The issue is that the ducks get a low background level of Tamiflu - not a dose which prevents them from getting the flu.
If they got the full dose the drug would be prophylactic - and the flu would not take hold. Its the flu transferring to them in the presence of low background levels of Tamiflu.
Tamiflu resistance is becoming quite widespread - look it up. This appears to be the mechansim...
(Contra: some Tamiflu resistent swine flu has been noticed - and swine flu unlike most flus seems to avoid birds...)
J
October 4, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't work that way. Tamiflu does not induce resistance mutations, rather it selects for rare resistant survivors when the sensitive population is killed back. This is natural selection at work. In order for the resistant strain to replace the ancestral population requires a pharmocological effective dose. These ducks are not exposed to that level of tamiflu.
October 4, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink