Paula:
Pre-ramble..... I don't follow the company, and some of this may be way off-base. You or anyone else has free license to correct and ridicule. Quotes below obviously aren't real quotes.
Try thinking like this. I thought that Maxim was a stinking pile. Did I have the guts to assign a value, and short them, previous to their fateful meeting with an advisory committee?
No.
They represented that FDA had said that they could look at the subpopulation of patients with liver metastases. When the AC meeting rolled around, FDA says "you can look at your own butt in the mirror, but the standard of approval is intent to treat, you were formally informed of such, and here's the letter".
So...... how can we value IMCL without knowing the content of FDA letters in their files? Is there a letter saying that "refractory is tough to call, and it is not necessary to make that call if a trial is placebo controlled and double blind".
Given a delay in marketing (if and when), valuation also gets a bit more complex when you consider (1) a (IMO) lousy patent claim (use claim, combining MAb with conventional cytotoxic therapy), and competitive projects from Astra Zeneca, Abgenix, OSI and others.
Take home..... your best guess is probably as good as anyone's. |
