Even if terms of the deal result in a lower % sales dollar flowing to MNTA than for mC, don't you think these terms still may result in a large dollar amount flowing to MNTA on any one of these partnered FoBs?
Suggest you are forgetting the double whammy effect - e.g. if aL had entered the market not only would GM have shrunk, so would sales $ to mL. It was what made the potential entry of aL so damaging.
I think the BAX terms are fairly clearly implying an expectation of reasonably low GMs - 35-50%. (Branded have mid-80's GM without competition - and with a single generic I'd expect it to stay in high 60's percent).
The expectation of low GMs strongly implies significant sharing of the market - e.g. that mBios get perhaps 20% of the total market (e.g. non-subs get 45% of market, and mBio shares subs market with branded plus authorized generic). So, take a biologic currently getting $2.5B in US in 2010, and in 2016, just before generics enter, it is getting $3.3B. Due to competition with generics total $ value of market shrinks to $2.5B (more scripts - but at much lower price). mBio gets 20% of that market (i.e. $500M). Royalty to MNTA is 20% - or $100M/Yr.
Not much compared to Copaxone or even Lovenox.
Even with 6 of these generics, some with higher royalty and/or higher sales, the total will be, perhaps, $1.5B - in 10 years or so. On any kind of reasonable risk adjusted NPV basis I think it is clear that Lovenox and Copaxone is where the value is.
FYI - Next calc for me is the comparison to other announced deals.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
