InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 13
Posts 865
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/17/2017

Re: Saltz post# 31523

Thursday, 12/06/2018 11:26:39 AM

Thursday, December 06, 2018 11:26:39 AM

Post# of 232961
I follow your logic there, and don't disagree. I'm looking at the test as an opportunity to monetize an asset to break the funding cycle that we're in, and that frees up everything else. Including the share price. The opportunity to continue development without NEEDING to sell shares or license/partner leronlimab increases our leverage considerably.

I also think that, despite some comments I've heard floated, the actual mechanics of licensing leronlimab for a single indication (e.g. HIV, or GvHD) would be very difficult. Which is why this never happened - a suitor would want a deal for all indications to protect their licensed market, but weren't willing to pay what the company would require for additional indications (e.g. cancer). That's why I think the test will go first. Even $30-50mm up front for exclusive rights to that test looks like a screaming deal to me, if it's as superior as data suggests, and there are no issues with multiple markets and indications.

All that to say, I sleep very well at night with this investment.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CYDY News