Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Re: MNTA valuation

Thanks, Jim. Your 2:1 ratio of case-1/case-2 is consistent with my numbers, and I suspect we’re not that far apart overall. However, you are interpreting the 9-12 month look-ahead more literally than I had intended when I defined the four cases.

I made the target period Feb-Apr 2009 because I assumed the FDA was likely to reply in some form by then. Hence, case 1 and case 2 were intended to denote FDA approval for MNTA/Sandoz on the next review cycle, regardless of the exact timing. Case 3 was intended to represent an indeterminate FDA response on the next review cycle, and case 4 was intended to represent an outright rejection on the next review cycle.

I will repost, rephrasing the definitions of the four cases as described above, and give you and others the opportunity to change your numbers if you think the rephrased definitions make any difference. Regards, Dew