In my opinion if PAR was to accept a complete buyout after phase...

In my opinion if PAR was to accept a complete buyout after phase 3 then they shouldn't accept anything less than 20 billion. Reasoning? Tanezumab cost 2 billion and has since failed. Gilead paid 7.5 billion for a few drugs which are still pre phase 1. Also my main line if thought is that a big pharma with global reach and networks could easily get a pay off that kind of investment within 5 years of selling ipps which is very favorable.

I do like to think Paul will only accept a partnership after phase 3 as this will create better value for shareholders but will take longer. I'm not sure how they structure these kind of deals so can't say what it would do to the SP other than to say it would surely be seen positively by the market.

Going it alone the whole way would require a lot of funds to be raised and this would mean dilution and would also take the longest. I don't see this as a viable option as it would take so long you risk leaving a gap in the market for others to exploit. It would also take many years more than any of the other paths to reach full potential.

my preference would be a partnership after phase 3. We would get the initial boost in SP from the partnership ann which would allow you to take some profits and you can keep some for many years as ipps reaches more and more patients and gains market share worldwide. Sure we get diluted by the partnership but I don't really want to wait 20 years for PAR to go it alone. That's my opinion anyway. It's all hearsay and rambling thoughts on a sunday arvo.....