I agree that it’s negative in the sense that it introduced additional uncertainties on the balance sheet, especially when viewed alongside the strong 323 data. However, this is now a moot point since they plan to partner out the asset.
Overall, I don’t see the data as inherently negative. Given the trial size, both data sets have likely helped de-risk the RSV program, suggesting the asset’s value should rise rather than fall.
That said, they can’t sustain burning $100–150 million per year for another 2–3 years—otherwise, as jbog pointed out, they’ll be in serious trouble.
They allocated $160 million to R&D and $50 million to G&A. If RSV is no longer in the equation (assuming no upfront payments and no further clinical expenses), their costs should drop significantly—potentially to around $60 million for R&D and $30 million for G&A. This would reduce annual cash burn to under $25 million, significantly improving the company’s financial outlook.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
