Replies to post #98143 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

ANDS: I can't say I disagree with any of the analysis though it could have been made earlier.

It’s dumb for the Roth analyst to claim that the review of “strategic alternatives” is the reason for cutting the target price by 60% (from $5 to $2). As you and I know, the real issue for ANDS is the lack of a compelling reason for a prospective partner to want ANA598 when there are several better options within the HCV arena. If the Roth analyst had been doing his job, he would have cut the target price to $2 (or less) a while ago when ANDS released the ANA598 clinical data.