RM, yes it has to. Why?
If you have a cost of 50$ with AstraZeneca collaboration and a cost of MORE then double (say 101$ to be as friendly in my example as possible) WITHOUT AstraZeneca collaboration, the the NET effect of the AstraZeneca collaboration with PPHM is 51$ less cost.
That is 50+% of the cost that would NOT BE GONE WITHOUT AstraZeneca and must therefore be attributed to the AstraZeneca deal. It doesn't matter AT ALL how AstraZeneca makes this possible.
As I said, getting a house or getting the cash to buy the same house is EXACTLY the same, you got the value of the house you own now.
So AstraZeneca's 51$ in the above example can, by example, partly be given because AZ delivers the Durvalumab in the countries where the trial runs (where otherwise PPHM would have to pay for delivery via the CRO that would have to move it from, say, the US to Europe). It is certainly also partly because of the price of Durvalumab, the MOST expensive substance in the trial, being delivered for free by AZ, etc.
But actually as I said, it doesn't matter because from PPHM, and our, perspective what counts is that we get the value of a FULL FEATURED TRIAL in the form of RESULTS (the house we will own) for 50% of what it would have normally costed because the AstraZeneca deal in some way or another absorbed 50% of the cost by services and product and not in cash handovers.
So YES, we may take at FACE VALUE that AstraZeneca in some way, not completely disclosed, has the effect as if someone PAID 50% of the cost of our clinical trials. Why is that so hard to accept?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
