Fair points, Fred. See how that's done, Pearsby?
First, you're completely correct about a partnership being inherently dilutive, and I could have worded that more carefully. I think most would argue that it would have likely have significant advantages over current methods of financing, not the least of which would be some measure of certainty. A clear picture on the funding front should help produce more accurate valuations, which I'd argue would be beneficial in several ways. But no doubt, a partnership would be dilutive to value.
I think you're generally correct on combo vs. mono. To your point though, by the time combo is theoretically up for BLA, they'll have no less than 1/3 of the data from the mono study out of necessity. If early returns on the first 100 patients are good, most would reason that little would change for the remainder of the trial. I think some sort of deal is likely at that point assuming good data, because I agree with you that if they can complete the trials, approval would be unsurprising.
Also true about costs - to a degree. Only $33 million was trial costs. The rest was for CMC costs. And you're correct that he mentioned additional SG&A as well, though I'd argue the $60 million number is the bulk. There may be additional costs there - it might even be likely - but those are the numbers straight from the horse's mouth 24 hours ago.
I think the road there could be very painful to shareholders, or it could be rewarding quite quickly by meeting enrollment targets, getting the results, and partnering. Not sure which is more likely to be honest, but at least we're talking about actual facts now! And personally, I think it will get there one way or the other, and even if painfully diluted, will provide some return to shareholders. The potential upside should be significantly better than "some upside", I would think.
Good post, appreciate it.
