Replies to post #31931 on Biotech Values

[rkrw]

MNTA. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. And I think dew isn't the only one who would have preferred someone other than NVS. But there's different ways of looking at the deal. I still think it's tough to criticize a deal when the partner tosses in two of their own drugs.

So I liked the deal. Validation of the lovenox deal by coming back for seconds. Pulled in stakes in 2 new products that they called late stage doubles the near to mid term shots on goal. Very aggressive partner was a must given the potential for patent challenges, politics and fda indecision. Mystery generic is a $1B+ drug, so the 2 leads are $1B++. Sandoz takes over lovenox EU anda filings which shouldn't take too long. Can't wait to see the Sandoz 2. So I think it was a great deal and better than I would have expected.

[DewDiligence]

MNTA – That was a thin-skinned reply by you. For the record, this is what I said in #31862:

>>
Two points:
1. The deal does not have an up-front signing fee per se—the initial $75M is all in the form of an equity sale.
2. MNTA now has essentially all of its future tied up with a single company (NVS). I think it would have been more bullish if MNTA had inked a major deal with a different partner.
--
MNTA’s valuation is not that cheap. Those who got out near today’s high (20.98) probably made a wise move, IMHO.
<<

I find it amusing that you consider this an justified bash.

>Contrast this to IDIX, whose hepatitis deals are with whom? Novartis.<

What does MNTA have to do with IDIX? They are playing in totally different arenas.

IDIX, by the way is not an independent company—it’s a majority-owned subsidiary of NVS. Hence, noting that IDIX is partnered with NVS in hepatitis is not especially illuminating.