If a poster or two is correct and the inference from the press releases are accurate, we should be getting some news on an investment partner with the cancer subsidiary fairly quickly here, If that's the case, I am curious as to opinions on whether the amount of money invested by the presumed partner for "X" percentage of the subsidiary nicely equates to an overall value on the subsidiary. For a simple example, does a $10 million invested for a 10% stake really equate to a $100 million value in investors eyes or is it some discounted amount because some of the money will be used for operating expenses and burn cash immediately? How do you value the parent when the subsidiary may have more value and does the value translate dollar for dollar to the market cap of the publicly traded stock? It should if the stock market is efficient but we all know it's not perfectly so...
Some of you hate the question and flame me for asking it but I will one more time for the sake of some discussion: are the coming Hep C drugs good enough that people will not go through the process of an invasive blood cleansing and just live with the shorter treatment period from new drugs? As Hep C drugs get better, they've gone without dialysis-like treatment so far, why start it now with even better drugs? Of course, a portion may not react to the new drugs but that's a much smaller market. Was this really the reason bird flu and the ever-popular dengue fever never caught on?
HIV: The most recent news for suggests that the virus is in hiding and may be 60 times more present in the body even when it's somewhat in remission (my words, the articles including one in the Wall Street Journal explain it better). Does this really at the end of the day mean that some researchers/advocates are correct that clearing the blood is not the end all, be all that we would like it to be?
If Hep C and HIV are not the markets we would like, doesn't this mean we're really focused on one disease?