BD:
As in life, so in business, their are "wants" and then their are "needs. And this goes to a general discussion of value and buyer motivation. Because it's always the buyer that makes a market, not the seller.
None of the big pharma's needs CYDY. These giants all earned $5 billion+ in prior fiscal year. However a few did trend downward - especially Gilead which earned $26 billion in 2017 and $22 billion in 2018. And that's with an INCREASE in HIV revenue to 14 billion+.
In my opinion we're nowhere near threatening enough for them to hand us the keys to the vault, we have much to prove before showered with some of the pie in the sky figures bandied about. If I'm at Gilead, yes I'm wary of competition and a bit worried because one drug type accounts for 65% of revenue.
My group is very small potatoes financing consortium, usually topping out at $250k to struggling small businesses and start ups that appear to have potential. So I've sat through countless presentations, read innumerable balance sheets/prospectuses and know it's all just numbers on a piece of paper - prove it to us.
Trogarzo/Ibalizumab was approved last April. The first two months they ran out sales figures of $1.2 million-In Q3 that bounced to $4.9 million and they report Q4 on Thursday. Their most recent slide presentation now states it will be four to five years before peak sales of $3 billion- I'm extremely skeptical they ever see that number.
To believe we'll see $480 million in revenue next year is folly, so it's easy to understand if Gilead is not feeling the heat or concerned we're taking food off their plate. Having said that, certainly they're vulnerable relying so heavily on the one trick pony- That's why I still like your partnership proposal in today's climate. They save face, potential future loss of business foundation and have upside with cancer, GVHD, etc applications-
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
