This is the most logical.
The buyout theory doesn't hold much weight against prior historical data on buyouts.
I get the notion that many people either don't believe or don't know that there is data collected, analyzed and interpreted on these such matters. Not only that, but the variables that are used in the econometric based evaluation models is quite extensive.
The first "problem" is the mere fact of non-clinical data with Regen.
The second "problem" is the fact of what they hold is speculative patents. I have already discussed the reason why the small molecule drug program with Regen on the Orphan Nuclear Receptor NR2F6 is not that "feasible" at this moment in time still.
The third "problem" once again, is the "feasibility" of the mRNA cancer vaccine. There are numerous companies working on these vaccines. Not only that, but the results are either not promising or still being evaluated.
If one compares this vaccine to other vaccines in the works... there is still a huge gamble.
Pharmaceutical companies are calculated people.
Further, why would it be reasonable for a large pharma to buyout Regen as a whole? What if, after all the things Regen has, the "big pharma" can only use one part of a patent? It would be a total waste. And of course, it would be a total waste to Regen for selling (at most likely be a low ball deal) where they could have either held on too the patents for later use or found another company to work with.
The objective is to reduce economic discrepancies as much as possible.
Regen is nothing more than speculative patents/ and or pre clinical data.
I believe (in my opinion) that the parts here are better subdivided and either licensed or have capital funding (JV).
So I agree with you.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
