Good post, thanks. I think you're generally correct. However, I don't think it's too early at all for a partnership on the prostate test. What I've been able to dig up from some research on similar deals suggests that it's not uncommon to have an up front payment for exclusive rights, followed by additional milestone payments for things like approval. If this arrangement is indeed somewhat common, a year or so seems like a very reasonable window all things considered. Coupled with Pestell's comments that I referenced earlier, perhaps Pourhassan's comments weren't so undisciplined after all. I'm wary of Pourhassan's promises based on past experience, but I believe Pestell chooses words carefully.
That said, this isn't my area of expertise in the least. I just tend to be a quick study and know how to use google. If anyone has strong experience in the biotech field regarding the structure and timing of licensing deals, etc., that would be pretty informative in this case.
Your point #5 is interesting to me, and may be most in line with Bobbyinvest's point in his post earlier that started this general thread. I admittedly don't know much about this sort of late-stage funding, what terms such a fund might find appealing, etc., and it's difficult to find public information on comps. I believe that there's an open offering through Paulson that hasn't been fully subscribed yet. My way of thinking would say that if I were a fund looking to invest, I'd go about trying to take down any remaining capacity there first. Makes it hard for me to see how a fund jumps straight into giving us money on (significantly) less dilutive terms when there are ways to get exposure at a lower cost.
But again... I'm just a guy who gets some of this stuff from being involved in a completely different world and who knows how to use google.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
