Rick,
Thanks for the mini-treatise! I am very grateful for the quality of information and insight you bring to these threads. It's particularly valuable because I know that these companies and their programs are different, but determining and evaluating the differences isn't easy. So I appreciate your help in moving me along the learning curve.
I couldn't find Mike Solomon anywhere, so if he's lurking and could jump in to discuss ARQL and PCOP that would be great. Otherwise, Rick,I'd welcome your "re-spitting" what you know. One other I am curious about is Arris. I saw that you had mentioned them in your article and was wondering how they fit in?
Around all these companies, I'm trying to get a feel for the qualitative as well as quantitative differences--the relative strengths and weaknesses of their science and their business plan balanced against the more obviously visible items like cash on hand, partnerships, progress in trials, etc. My assumption is that strong, smart companies should win out, but having more cash around means less need for refinancing and more opportunity to pursue the opportunities. As Damon Runyon said, "The race does not always go to the swiftest, and the contest is not always won by the strongest, but that's the way to bet."
And my big picture question is to what extent do the big pharmaceutical houses already have big combichem libraries or are these smaller companies likely takeover targets somewhere along the line?
Thanks again.
Baird |
