Wino115 wrote: From all you can see it looks like they want to push the NASH indication much further down the road before considering that. I think any pharma would also want to see it pushed further down the road and happily pay up to get involved in something highly de-risked. If they prove it up, what they need in partnership isn't the science, but the distrubution globally since they own 100% worldwide rights. It's a good problem for them to have and figure out. There's just so many variables that can go either way over the next 12-18 months to provide clarity on things like that. For instance, if oncology suceeds, they need to think about manufacturing and sales. Do you build, farm-out, partner-up, etc... Once again, great problem, but those will be very strategic decisions to make and move the flow diagram to another box. If you build on your specialty sales network with oncology, maybe you feel you can handle NASH in certain geographies. I don't know, but all of that is highly dependent on the variables in front of them now. One step at a time -- let's get efficacy, let's get hard data in humans (by the way, that was JFM who coined that term, not me. I just like it).
Between cash and decent revenue forecasts they have (not outlandish either), they should be fine for next 2 years. At that point, the Board will know what they need because you'll know if the convert is above the conversion point and you'll be in to your trials. Now, you could also have some oncology revenue in 2022-2023 somewhere in there if things go well so that's a wildcard. So the issue will be if below the conversion price, you'll need to include that in your raise. If it's not included then you know the share is over $15, so dilution won't be huge to tack on $150mil or so which is probably all they need if oncology ramps to revenues. If it's below the conversion then it will be $50mil larger. Issues for 2022-2023 to consider. The crazy wildcard woudl be that if they do get decent numbers on 2-4 cancer indications and we saw the Barclays guys pencilled in first year revenues for those refractory hard tumor types of around $250mil each and peak between $1.5-2bil each, with revenues doubling every year to get there, then you don't need a penny. In fact, time to start a nice dividend policy! There's no way you could spend the free cash flow quickly enough. Problems to dream about......
FredTheVoice wrote: Jeffm34,
So Th bought back the rights for EGRIFTA,
And now, they will give some away again ?
Bad move in my opinion......
What if Oncology makes the stock rise so nicely in the next year, that the next financing, lets say, at 16$C, makes everyone very happy.....
FTV.