Replies to post #122055 on Biotech Values

[investorgold2002]

I wondered about the same. that they could get some contract manufacturing capabilities(unless this is difficult to get- which i doubt), some clinical trial and then get late stage marketing partner

the hardest part appears to me is characterization capabilities esp if it needs to be approved as substitutable.

Let's see what magic wheeler has in his bag for shareholders. I believe his strategy is for MNTA to stick with and grow it's Core business of characterization...So he probably doesn't want to do anything (even outsourced management) with manufacturing, conducting clinical trial, or marketing

[DewDiligence]

Re: MNTA partner for FoB’s

Could somebody explain why it is obvious they need a partner for all programs? Seams like they could easily get the ABLA (or whatever it is called) in front of the FDA. If the FDA decides that it is well characterised and only needs minimal trials, then I would think MNTA could also handle this. If it gets approved as substitutable, then all they need is somebody who gets a modest cut for handling the mechanics of getting it out. So, is it not possible they could push some candidates forward before they have a partner?

Yes, MNTA could do all of the things you mention above, and Craig Wheeler even said so on the recent GS webcast. However, developing FoB’s without a partner would require using a contract manufacturer, and MNTA may be gun-shy about exposing its proprietary technology in such a venue.

[rkrw]

I've seen the cost estimate for an FOB as around $200M.
This is of course not risk free, may have $10M+ in litigation expenses and will take many years start to finish.

<<<Could somebody explain why it is obvious they need a partner for all programs?>>>