"I see partnering as a reflection of management capability and temperament more than validation of a drug's chances to see FDA approval."
I agree with you fully on that statement. I also agree with you that management is sometimes not in a rush to do an "imperfect deal" because they do not have to pay real cash for their shares and thus are not as concerned as we shareholders are with regards to further dilution instead of partnering. This however brings up a good observation in that case. If management is uncertain of an FDA outcome, then it makes a lot of sense for them to actually partner if they can. However, if their confidence for approval is very high, then they may be very reluctant to do an imperfect deal because of the thinking that their future success is in the bag...
In relation to DNDN, many of us have been bashing management for not having partnered Provenge early on. However, your post has made me stop and think that, perhaps, management was so confident early on that they decided to take the beating and go it the alone route instead of signing an imperfect deal. Given the good results that followed in the last year, I think management got lucky in this case even though much of the dilution that occurred could have been prevented... In a few months, DNDN management will be viewed as either heroes or incompetents depending on the FDA decision... I am hoping it goes the hero way as I have a large stake in DNDN...
