@stockrock
Re "But from my point of view, the pediatric aGVHD program is not the program MSB should be partnering. It is a perfect program to take to market ourselves... you say its a small market, yes that is true for a large pharma (who would not pay us much upfront for this program), but to MSB it is more than enough to break-even from a cash flow perspective."
At this stage I'm not selective about which program is best for partnering. I'm more concerned with any being partnered.
My reading of the situation is that partnering of agvhd was always the CEO's preference. He wanted Celgene to pick this up along with other treatments, that is indisputable.
This has not just become a case of what is best for positive cash flow, but also what provides the safest way for msb to get this to fruition without the huge risk of tackling the market on their own. The credibility of a working, marketable treatment in agvhd is far more meritorious than the distant prospect of extra cash.
I have no big problem with Mesoblast having limited cash, if the partners are lining up as the company have suggested.
That they turn to an option the CEO has rejected in the past is not what I expected. In my view the costs and complexity of taking a product to market are enormous, partnering is ultimately the surest (and lowest risk way) to achieve that.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
