News Focus
News Focus
icon url

neuroinv

03/24/09 11:36 PM

#24538 RE: DewDiligence #24537

That's helpful perspective, I've heard similar anecdotal reports elsewhere. The sheer volume is stunning.

NeuroInvestment
icon url

corwatcher

03/25/09 12:40 AM

#24539 RE: DewDiligence #24537

<<Presumably, MRK is not materially different from other Big Pharma in this regard.>>

Great info Dew.

If the AMPAKINE platform is considered valuable, we would have to believe that BP is looking and making offers. That doesn't guarantee a deal or a buy out. Time will tell.
icon url

atheroprevent

03/25/09 9:25 AM

#24540 RE: DewDiligence #24537

>>Of these, 60 (1% of the original 6,000) resulted in a consummated business transaction<<

...and of these 60, how many will consumate with a successful NDA? ....and at what total BP investment cost? Quite a different a different mind set, than with what most of us invested.

Robust POC certainly trumps the IP.
icon url

enemem

03/25/09 10:21 AM

#24544 RE: DewDiligence #24537

This information is useful, but only to a point. My sense is that the partnering process has a winner-take-all dynamic. On one hand, of the 6000 partnerships that were initiated, many likely fell by the wayside because the drugs in question didn't survive closer scrutiny; on the other hand, of the 600 that reached non-disclosure threshold, there were likely multiple offers, so the 1% consumation rate shouldn't be interpreted as implying that the other 540 companies who entered into non-disclosure with Merck never partnered. At least some of them found better offers elsewhere.

The more relevant number is the percentage of companies that progressed to non-disclosure that went on to partner with anybody. If we are to take Varney at his word, that is the number that we need to know about to estimate cor's chances.

All this said, the "build it and they will come" assumption that I and everybody else vested in cor has made looks pretty shaky.