Replies to post #108438 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[nidan7500]

With the full changeout of upper level management with the departure of the CFO, the new crew under Vournatsos has very little allegiance to the current pipeline including Aducanumab and its very costly P3. Their new Head of R&D, Micheal Ehler's statement about "acquiring drugs before they've been completely proven." is quite telling. Pressure will continue from Biogen's BOD for the Management Team to stop the bleeding.

T-38-agree with your thought process. Could it be they see the new FDA and new refined/precision medicine brings a level of certainty to new products approvals. How bout more/better process information and tuning as we go vs bet the farm-do or die or pass-fail or get a bigger sample thinking? BTD is the prize for the right answer the first time.

[F1ash]

I'm pretty sure this statement indicates they are "buying" not "selling".

"If i license a product from you, I am in-licensing it and you are out-licensing it. If I license a product to you, then I am out-licensing and you are in-licensing."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-in-licensing-and-out-licensing-in-pharmaceutical-sector


http://www.nature.com/bioent/2003/030101/full/nbt0602supp-BE36.html


"And the in-licensing model fits the second description. Slow to become popular, in-licensing is now fashionable with some investors, mainly because of its ability to accelerate the corporate development process. However, the model has been slow to mature, because it is difficult to find products suitable for in-licensing, and most scientists still ask, "Why bother?"

The opportunity

Although venture capitalists began making significant investments in in-licensing companies during the mid-1990s, the model has a more venerable history. On the product supply side of the in-licensing transaction, large pharmaceutical companies have for some time exchanged both launched and development-stage products with one another, swapping them in transactions that rationalize the companies' product portfolios and development pipelines. For example, a company with marketing strength in cardiovascular products might swap late-stage products with a company strong in, say, endocrinology, should a product show more promise in one clinical area than the other. Alternatively, a company that has more viable preclinical projects that it can fund, but a lack of product candidates at the phase 3 trial stage, might trade one or more of the preclinical projects as partial compensation for a candidate in phase 3.

The rising tide of mergers within the pharmaceutical industry has accelerated this trend (see Fig. 1). When two companies merge, inevitably good projects are cancelled and the development of certain products is halted. Indeed, in some large research-based pharmaceutical companies, out-licensing has become a formal function. Although just a few years ago most sellers would only consider licensing to other multi-national pharmaceutical companies, today they have to stoop lower in the "food chain" to find willing partners. This provides an opportunity for startups."