Well that's kind of a moot point really - considering they're acting on delivery of an ASO, it's not their own drug where the toxicity question was and they seem to have walked away from internal candidates like MYC etc . Delivery was probably always the best path for them for a long time but they kept chop changing between delivery or drug company, delivery, drug, delivery, drug etc as headline.
Delivery has it's own challenges though whilst the drug market is by far the one offering the greatest return delivery has always been presumably a much cheaper path to follow. It still comes back to the cost benefit for a potential partner - just because you can deliver the drug better does it mean economic benefit increases ? Will it change the market they can capture ? Ease them through approvals for the drug ? Lower the cost of material ? For existing ones keep them ahead of the competition ? If like Sarepta there is presently no competition does it benefit them to pay more for something they have hold of regardless ?
All comes down to deals, if they can find one and what the potential suiter is prepared to pay for it imo
PYC Price at posting:
4.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)