Cardioprotection thread, page-509

LT

I don't know how you're calculating 'fair share price'. I think it's pretty rudimentary to look at the extrapolation of the Triangle Report, point at a number, and say "I want it" .

In saying that, I was considering what a near term licensing deal might look like (back of the envelope, thumb-suck type consideration). NPV is too hard at the moment because it's going to cost billions (and years) to get this wholly commercialised (far too many assumptions). Triangle were pretty conservative with a lot of their assumptions. I don't think they were all that conservative with pricing, however, so I've reduced this assumption by 75%, halved the somewhat industry standard of peak sales multiplier (4) and applied a heavy risk discount (99%) given the uncertainty of capital/time requirements.

This is 'ultra conservative' considering we've not clinically validated CPACS or FTO (unless we get a curveball from Sheba 2.0???).




There's a lot of discussion (moaning) about what the share price should look like, but most of it seems to revolve around gut feel (and the anchoring of the current price). Would be interesting to see what a near term cash injection from a geographic licensing deal might do to it. For the record, I'd be fuming if we licensed China and Japan for only US$60m (applying a 98% risked discount doubles it...).