Clark
I didn't intend to target you with my sweet suggestion of insincerity or financial innumeracy in some of the worrywart postings. Known and respected you long enough not to suspect either.
I AM tired of tire-kickers who don't ackoowledge that the car is priced such that if she runs she's the best deal in a long time. This biotech game has to blend the price of the gamble, the value if successful and the probability of success. Just pointing out possible ways it won't be successful - ignoring the other two elements - can sound like bashing. Of course if they are showstoppers, the price and the pot of gold make no difference, but they're not.
I agree with your and Nerf's positive take on management - but I've only been watching since last summer. The lean approach is probably what gives rise to some of the questioning. Would we rather the DNDN approach of 200 staff doing nothing for several years at shareholders' expense?
(Other than Lean, some blame mgt for the stock price, which is circular reasoning and almost totally unfair in this godforsaken sector.)
Financing from now to disposition is the big issue other than the clinical risks. Unless anyone doubts that there are enough BP women's health players around to bid it to fair value. Or competitive drug candidates breathing down our necks?
Corp
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
