RE: COPD30 Nov 2022 22:12
Dippfs, my comment is for licensing the whole asset outright not just for COPD. Let's put it this way, there is a difference between price and value. The price we see today is heavily down weighted because of the vast majority of us douting investors; we are very wary being significantly under water (burned alive in fact) plus well over invested and will not invest (very risk averse for sure) further until there's a clear value crystallisation event or major stimulus like STRIVE inclusion. However the intrinsic value of this company looks to be much higher now we have some great extra efficacy signals (corroboration) and great safety data points on the development map that point to "this works well" as a generalised agnostic innate immune system viral defence solution with an established mode of action story (viral defence akin to antibiotics) to tell patients/prescribers (and payors indirectly to reduce hospitalisation costs),
with fantastically low side effects observed, and especially beneficial if you use it early with people with known risk factors or genetic defects of the innate immune system or those already immune compromised. I don't think it's out of the question to get an upfront payment of roughly this £150m magnitude plus future weighted milestones and royalties if things turn out favourably with 1 or 2 large pharma cos negotiations. The only reservation as always is our relatively high drug price point but I think the balance will tip soon into a JV deal since BP has to be crazy not to want to spend tiny beer money (£150m upfront) for the rights to all the upside profit there could easily be here in wide commercialisation and extension of label and potential for off label use for any old suspected respiratory virus and COPD asthma suffers in hospitalised settings.