Replies to post #133760 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

If I had my druthers, MNTA would have partnered with PFE or SNY rather than BAX. Moreover, I would have preferred to see MNTA ink more lucrative terms in a deal for one or two FoB’s rather than a somewhat less lucrative deal that incorporates as many as six FoB’s and has a large number of moving parts. However, it does not follow from the above that I think MNTA got “screwed,” which seems to be the point you’ve been pressing for the past 26 hours.

[DewDiligence]

…MNTA and BAX concur on fact that the Market share for mBio is going to be a lot lower than you believe.

Wrong interpretation, IMO. It’s not that the companies expect the market share for interchangeable FoB’s to be lower than I think it will be, but rather that there’s a non-trivial risk that interchangeable FoB’s will not pass muster with regulators. Since BAX is bearing a sizable portion of this risk, BAX is entitled to be compensated for this risk in the way the deal is structured.