Many thanks for those details
@pfeifer1982. I have seen Sector's repeated references to these likely future outgoings for MSB over on the CYP board but since I no longer post there I haven't bothered to look into the level of detail you provide.
There is another reason I never have gone into those future royalty expenses. It's because I don't care apart from being pleased that becoming liable for them proves that MSB is successfully making sales. For the same reason I never try to guess what company tax MSB will pay. Paying royalties and tax will be great. Sector should hope for the same for CYP. I've got no idea why Sector should cite these expenses as if they are a handicap. They will be a sign of the most (or only) successful stem cell company in Australia if not the world.
Sector's point seems to be that a person on a big income and paying tax is worse off than an unemployed person who can rejoice in paying no tax.
Sector also repeatedly points out the marked contrast between MSB and CYP cash burn. Well, cash is what you use to pay the salaries and expenses of a 20 person sales staff plus loading the shelves of hospitals with ready to use product. Burn, cash, burn. What an enviable problem.
I note you always answer questions courteously and factually so I will take the opportunity to ask a couple that I won't place on the CYP board. They relate to possible competitive advantages of each company so I think they are as appropriate here as there.
First is, what is the contractual relationship between CYP and WARF? I am not asking for the entire contract - I should DMOR for that. The one specific point that I would need answered before investing in CYP is how secure is continuing access to the IP, specifically, is there a finite term and what happens when that expires? Is there an option for continuing? I note the exciting opportunity for CYP in OA but the trials, readout and FDA consideration would take 3-5 years. So quite a long period of exclusive access to the IP would be necessary for development and then significant sales.
Second question relates to Fuji Film's planned trial of an aGvHD treatment in Japan. I would be reluctant to have any expectation of this going forward until Fuji tells how they expect to recruit subjects in a country where a Ryoncil look-alike in Temcell has already commanded the market. What patient or parent would submit to an unknown treatment when there is readily available a treatment that Dr Joanne Kurtzberg has unmistakably described as a cure in the majority of recipients? I would also think it unethical of any doctor to fail to offer patients Temcell in preference to an untried experiment.
As posted by others, regenerative medicine is a huge field and no one company could possibly satisfy every indication and every market. I don't understand the combative nature of some posters. We can learn from each other and your informative posts are always appreciated.
(20min delay)