Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: padco who wrote (12096)	2/16/2003 8:00:44 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14101

Hi Pat - Great post - a really informative link. Before going any further, I want to say that the question of whether or not there is a partnership between JnJ and DMX is hotly disputed. You said "I do not consider the standstill agreement with JnJ to be a partnership." Fair enough. That's a perfectly acceptable POV. I take your statement to mean that there is some kind of relationship, but it's not the equivalent of a true partnership. If that's what you're saying, I agree. RK's own words mirror yours: she referred to the separation from JnJ as a turning point in DMX's history. Still, I'll bet you that the eventual US distributor for Pennsaid ends up being JnJ. There's an interesting correlation between the graphs in your link, and here, where "in-licensing" (as opposed to "out-licensing"??) is referred to: canbiotech.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your post touches on many aspects of DMX's history. Plainly, the graphs show that the later stage investments by majors pay more - and that is clearly what RK was aiming at, in altering the relationship with JnJ, and going it alone. Research has established that the largest cost in drug development is trials. cptech.org This relates to your question: "...How many believe that an alliance with a large Pharma, which may have bankrolled the Pennsaid development, would have been preferrable to the Acqua financing?" WRT Pennsaid, it's precisely in the area of trials that DMX has been hit hardest with costs. We can speculate on the reasons, but I'd like to suggest that one of the reasons is the difficulty that regulatory agencies have in evaluating something as novel as Pennsaid. One might ask, "What is being evaluated? The drug, or the delivery system?". Certainly, the efficacy of diclofenac is well-established. Perhaps your question can be re-stated as "Will DMX be able to recover its development costs when Pennsaid distribution rights in the US are sold?" As to whether partnering or going it alone was the better alternative, I don't know. One thing's for sure: partnering would have been a lot easier on investors, LOL! But would it (or will it) result in greater profit to DMX, and therefore, to investors? The answer's still in the future. I think most would agree that RK's decision to go it alone was a calculated risk. Most would also agree that approvals have taken far longer than she apparently supposed; in the last 2 years, her only lifeline was Acqua. Was that a mistake? Some say it was a mistake in financing; what financialadviser1 called "...the marriage of a high-risk financing strategy..." to an R+D process that was inherently risky, itself. Or was the mistake in not partnering? Would partnering have mitigated the dilution suffered thru Acqua? And if DMX can recover that money, and put one or two dollars per share in the kitty, does it make any difference? In any case, RK chose not to partner, coupled with high-risk financing. Was that a mistake? I don't know, Pat. However, your excellent post seems to indicate that very few companies have taken on as much risk, alone, as DMX. Only time will tell if RK can make that risk pay off. Regards, Jim