In your scenario, Anavex is a binary event. In three or more years Blarcamesine for AD either succeeds or fails. That’s a huge risk that some retail investors might be willing to take but institutional biotech investors will likely not take. Anavex, or any clinical stage biopharma company for that matter, needs a few programs going on simultaneously in order to diversity the risk for investors and increase the chances for success. On the one hand, Anavex cannot afford to hinge its success on one program (especially in one of the most difficult and poorly understood indications). On the other hand, Anavex cannot afford to run several mid-to-late stage clinical programs simultaneously for several years without raising a lot of money. Those two scenarios seem untenable to me.
I’ll stick with my opinion that an all-stock merger with a better-positioned clinical-stage company in need of a substantial amount of cash is the best route to create shareholder value. I just don’t see a go-it-alone strategy being in the best interest of Anavex shareholders. Speaking for myself, I’d rather get shares of a credible, better-positioned company with a lower risk profile and nearer-term upside potential through a merger.
Time will tell.
Market Data 
Markets 
