Replies to post #85628 on Biotech Values

[bladerunner1717]

Wallstarb,

Why wasn't iloperidone good enough for NVS to partner? (How did you miss VNDA, by the way?)

The reason your argument is way too simplistic is that it fails to take into account a myriad of factors that might have led to NVS' decision. One factor could be the increased competition in the HCV market, coupled with the fact that NVS already owns over 40% of IDIX.

In the short term, you are, no doubt, right that this a negative for IDIX. The Market has already told us that. But whether it's a long-term negative, I think remains to be seen.

You have simply assumed that the reason NVS declined its "option" on the IDIX molecule is because the molecule is bad. Most reasonable people on this board consider your assumption to be "simple-minded," not necessarily wrong, just not very well-informed.

By the way, your argument that NVS passed on the drug, "even though" they own 50% (sic) of IDIX, is actually a good argument for why they passed on the drug, as others have mentioned. Think about your reasoning for a second.

I think my analogy holds up pretty damn well. (LOL)

"May the Force be with you"


Bladerunner

[10nisman]

<<< Probrably the worst analogy I have ever heard. They passed on IDX184 with all of the knowledge of owning nearly 50% of the company as well as having access to the data and knowing the drug from it's outset.

But you can't take an exception and try to prove the rule with it. It's a tainted drug now in my eyes and imo in the eyes of any potential partners - they will all have in the back of their minds "why wasn't it good enough for NVS to partner" >>>

Wall, your trader attitude and your mile wide and inch deep research is a dangerous thing. You clearly have never worked on any M&A or partner dealings because if you had, you would realize there is often a wide degree of interest and valuation from different parties for the same asset. What something is worth to one can and likely is worth something very different to another.

Also, how do you know NVS did not want to partner IDX 184? It could have been IDIX whom wanted more than NVS was willing to offer. Also, NVS may not have been interested in IDX solely because they have no future HCV plans vs. having a negative view of the drugs potential.

Using your thought pattern above, a laid-off executive would be tainted and thus not worth hiring by a competing firm - because if he's not good enough for NVS he's definitely not good enough for MRK, PFE, or wherever. And that's completely absurd.

Big Pharma companies make mistakes all the time and they have very different visions and drug focuses. Other potential partner's will review the data and do their own due diligence just like any smart competent person would. This isn't Jim Cramer hour where idiot America buys whatever crap he's selling.

10nis