Oh, no doubpt. The the leverage you can have on PPHM shares will not be there when you will have to buy the BP's shares.
Furthermore if BPs score you see the PPS move a couple of percentage due to the large number of outstanding shares and the 'fraction' such - say Bavi - business represents in the complete company activity.
With PPHM we will see big increase on the many events that these pipelines can deliver in oncology, viral, inflammatory and diagnostics.
And just for the example: If I give you the 25$, in what BP can you make 100$ of it (that is x4 and huge for a BP stock) faster then PPHM will get to 100$. Because if PPHM makes the 25$ (which a number of people will claim they'll never do) then there will be NO DOUBT any more, even by the strongest opponents, that it will go WAY higher then 100$ and it will do it in relatively SHORT time-frames.
Look at Intercept. What happened there is UNTHINKABLE for BMY, Roche, Merck, Ily, and the others PPS wise. So would Intercept shareholders have preferred 100$ in Q3/2012 (they quoted about 20$, so 100$=x5) to invest it in a BP that acquire the rights or would they have preferred the near 500$ jump in less then a week? You think the 100$ (500%) in Q2/2013 could have given them the same leverage (2500%) when invested otherwise, in for instance a BP who got the rights for the 100$?
Forget in this discussion the fact that resent disclosed information put question-marks with the FLINT results (cholesterol levels increase and itching requiring further research). It brought the PPS back to 150$, still x7.5 from where they started in Q3/2012. That is ICPT's Dose Switching equivalent, the little surprise that doesn't kill them but will slow them down. If this happens to ICPT it would have happened to whatever PB that paid the 100$ and that you would have invested in. Their share price would also suffer, so it is a ZERO transaction.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
