PTK, great post. Pithy.
"Y/E financials at this stage mean squat to me as it reflects March 2002 numbers...historical mumbo jumbo."
Yes.
"Clearly, their primary focus is OXO and not Pennsaid...Assuming a 25x purchase price, minimum, and if WF10 proves to be what we all think it will be, then the minimum price pharma's should be willing to pay is USD$1.5 billion for rights."
Yes. Look back at di7026's Patent App post. Look at the therapeutic targets: HCV, asthma, AIDS, prostate cancer, to name a few.
WF10 safety - already established. Remaining unknown: efficacy. If P3 efficacy is what we have supposed (even allowing for mitigation of mortality by HAART) then RK has a problem most pharmas can only dream about: can one partner handle it all?
The problem is both financial and tactical. $1.5 billion US is not chump change - and some might consider that price low. There's the prospect of significant competitive pressure. One or many partners? Would the chances of success be increased by having multiple partners, one for each targeted therapeutic area?
WRT the new science, and the BMAH - is it better to have multiple players carrying the flag, or just one?
Can one player handle the drain on resources, and the development potentials?
Your observations are excellent. Thanks.
Jim |
