The main reason I used that example was to show ho
Post# of 154032
(Total Views: 808)
Posted On: 01/24/2022 8:26:40 PM
The main reason I used that example was to show how we could be in a very similar stage of buyout talks. First offer is too low, company is about to share good news with the world, suitor asks for them to hold off while they negotiate. Seems to make a lot of sense.
As for buyout price, there’s definitely a lot of companies who are bought out for 2-3x or a 40% premium from their current price. I’d argue that when that happens it’s because the value of the company is already fairly reflected in their share price. We are, to state the obvious, trading much lower than we should be. In our case I think the acquisition of IMMU at $21 billion for breast cancer should have set a precedent. The value of mTNBC plus the value of NASH plus the value of Covid/longhaulers plus HIV plus all the rest should be what drives any realistic offer, and I can’t see why that would be lower than the $21 billion IMMU got.
As for buyout price, there’s definitely a lot of companies who are bought out for 2-3x or a 40% premium from their current price. I’d argue that when that happens it’s because the value of the company is already fairly reflected in their share price. We are, to state the obvious, trading much lower than we should be. In our case I think the acquisition of IMMU at $21 billion for breast cancer should have set a precedent. The value of mTNBC plus the value of NASH plus the value of Covid/longhaulers plus HIV plus all the rest should be what drives any realistic offer, and I can’t see why that would be lower than the $21 billion IMMU got.
(14)
(0)