Hi Sue,
Thanks for your reply. I think that the combichem field is
certainly big enough for two (or more??) companies. ArQule
certainly seems to have the momentum right now, inking deals
like crazy. I also agree with Jim's comment that some sort of
functional screening will be important, although I thought I
had heard that PCOP has some good biological screens in-house
as well, care to elaborate?
My feeling is that the ultimate success for these companies (in
the absence of in-house development programs) will lie in the
success of their collaborative agreements. I have found it quite
difficult to get actual details on these agreements but my feeling
is that ARQL gets lower royalty rates, in general, than PCOP. I
also believe that this is why they get so many deals. Big pharma
can give ARQL leads plus $50-100 million in milestones plus, say,
5% royalty (this is a guess). Compared to what that would cost
big pharma in house, it's a good deal... they can focus on other
targets in house. If PCOP requires a higher royalty, say 15-20%, then
big pharma might be less apt to ink a deal. I have no idea if this is
accurate but it gives an alternative to the "ARQL is better"
argument.
It's not that simple of course. PCOP also has in-house programs
under development which adds to the equation. I'm not sure if
ARQL has anything under development... they certainly may have
in-licenced something by now. All in all, I think that PCOP is
somewhat undervalued and ARQL is somewhat overvalued. I also feel
that as the success of these programs becomes clearer, having a
little of both in your portfolio will have proven to be a prudent
investment.
Thank you, Sue, and PCOP for participating in the thread
John |
