Totally disagree. The lab is getting better but I am thinking cures from other company's technologies will be coming at some point, overcoming the Ariad/other pill maintenance model. Plus, simple fact is, other labs have far more successfully delivered oncology drugs to the market than Ariad. (glass, the lifers won't agree with that last fact, but it's absolutely true.)
The value of Ariad is not predominantly in the lab, it's in the revenue stream and potential revenue streams.
Ariad partnered on the cheap (I mean diluted the revenue stream of) Pona for reasons that made some sense (i.e. no sales force in Asia or EastEu), asking for no participation in the approval for the indication they have partnered (only future INDs). For '113, in those same geographies, that same poor arrangement will likely be made. Handing the drugs over in exchange for them selling the drug, but not developing what they will be selling (again, excluding future INDs). Still, a bad deal for such 'good drugs' as Pona and '113. Done, because without those deals, in May 2015 HB would have had to get more cash. Instead he sold rights earlier than optimally timed. One bad deal created by another earlier one.
But HB is talking about a much broader geographical partnership, to fund 1st line for '113. I ask why? With $350MM in the bank, we could last long enough to float bonds against revenue for more money. But selling off '113, just underutilizes a domestic and Eu sales force we already pay for (many of the same (non-surgical oncology) docs prescribe Pona and '113, as MD pointed out at the AGM).
Fact is, the strategic direction of Ariad has changed dramatically since the AGM, 8 months ago. Future partnership of '113 to replace 'go it alone', 'Bellicum sold' replaced 'toe in other treatments', 2016 replace 2014 for mN. Totally management flip-flopping, totally misleading investors at the AGM.
It's management thrashing and trying to save the company from its own management incompetence, selling off good assets to pay for its own boneheaded mistakes.
I say pay the shareholders now, not in 5 years. It would be the same payoff.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
