<<< Probrably the worst analogy I have ever heard. They passed on IDX184 with all of the knowledge of owning nearly 50% of the company as well as having access to the data and knowing the drug from it's outset.
But you can't take an exception and try to prove the rule with it. It's a tainted drug now in my eyes and imo in the eyes of any potential partners - they will all have in the back of their minds "why wasn't it good enough for NVS to partner" >>>
Wall, your trader attitude and your mile wide and inch deep research is a dangerous thing. You clearly have never worked on any M&A or partner dealings because if you had, you would realize there is often a wide degree of interest and valuation from different parties for the same asset. What something is worth to one can and likely is worth something very different to another.
Also, how do you know NVS did not want to partner IDX 184? It could have been IDIX whom wanted more than NVS was willing to offer. Also, NVS may not have been interested in IDX solely because they have no future HCV plans vs. having a negative view of the drugs potential.
Using your thought pattern above, a laid-off executive would be tainted and thus not worth hiring by a competing firm - because if he's not good enough for NVS he's definitely not good enough for MRK, PFE, or wherever. And that's completely absurd.
Big Pharma companies make mistakes all the time and they have very different visions and drug focuses. Other potential partner's will review the data and do their own due diligence just like any smart competent person would. This isn't Jim Cramer hour where idiot America buys whatever crap he's selling.
10nis
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
