Replies to post #133710 on Biotech Values

[10nisman]

I would submit that the tepid investor response to the BAX deal (so far) is not due to a deficiency in the partnership’s financial terms, but rather to skepticism that MNTA can accomplish what it says it can accomplish with respect to interchangeability.

I completely agree and the reason why I (and likely most) were hoping MNTA could get mC approved on a fully interchangeable basis prior to inking a deal.

[rkrw]

I would agree with Dew there's still a lot of skepticism about mnta's ability to get a substitutable biogeneric approved. And until they do it there should be. Keep in mind, MNTA/BAX may well do everything perfectly and still get push back from the FDA.

I would think another giant factor would be cost. BAX is effectively paying 100% of the costs. Even quite a few big pharma are partnering up and cost splitting in this space.

Given BAX paying, I don't think the deal is so bad. It's kind of clever. If the FDA does show they'll approve a MNTA generic as interchangeable, certainly MNTA will opt-in on 3 through 6. Let the first couple be the proof of concept before shelling out the big money.

A last factor, the deal allows the cash flow to continue to accumulate while Lovenox is exclusive and the wild card in Copaxone. MNTA stock would have gone down today if they were splitting the cost and sacrificing eps for the next 7 years :)

[oldberkeley]

I would submit that the tepid investor response to the BAX deal (so far) is not due to a deficiency in the partnership’s financial terms, but rather to skepticism that MNTA can accomplish what it says it can accomplish with respect to interchangeability.

I'd submit that the tepid response is at least partly because the entire subject of biosimilars and this specific deal is so fraught with complicated technical, financial, and scientific possibilities—each dependent on another in an ever-cascading waterfall of complexity—that it’s too much for the average analyst (much less retail investor!) to quickly comprehend and digest. Present company excluded, of course.

Buyouts are easily understood and that understanding is reflected immediately in the PPS; this might take some time.

[mcbio]

Re: MNTA BAX/FoB deal CC

Just took a listen. Thought it interesting around about the 9:30 mark or so where, in discussing the cost-profit share option on FoBs 3-6, I believe Wheeler guided for the earliest timeline for the IND for the third FoB being 2014.

Also thought it interesting the one caller who asked about if MNTA didn't get the cost-profit share option on the first two FoBs due to BAX already having done work on these FoBs. I kind of got the impression that Wheeler was talking around that a bit so maybe that is the reason MNTA didn't get the cost-profit share option on those first two FoBs. Could well be wrong. If that is the case, though, given the potential that some degree of work has already been performed on these first two FoBs, hopefully that will translate into a shortened timeline on the first two FoBs (presumably the possibility of an IND before 2014 given that was the earliest guidance for an IND on the third FoB).