Recent posters make some good points, but valuations differ.
Are you fully factoring in the possibility that leaders of some pharma might be feeling obliged to make efforts to acquire either a licence or to purchase FUM outright.
There is probably an amount of pressure CEO’s of interested pharma, will be experiencing to acquire the technology for their company, and CEO’s might have some serious explaining to do if a competitor is successful. ie a form of ‘Fear Of Missing Out’ for each CEO.
MED is uncomplicated and cheap to manufacture, and CEO’s will be saying goodbye to a very profitable global market, if they try unsuccessfully to acquire a licence or an outright purchase. But try they must, or be seen to have made no effort for their company.
MED will have realised it’s potential, and become a patented product capable of disrupting the ED market if phase 3 pt 1 results are good enough, and that is why I feel that the MED patent is probably for sale or license at that time, rather than post Phase 3 Pt 2. The age of the board members is another factor here, - they will want something to retire with now, not very much later.
Pfizer got a huge boost in terms of profits and perceived ED expertise when Viagra was launched, and this bonanza is available all over again for a successful MED / FUM purchaser. It would seem strange if Pfizer themselves did not want to replicate their previous ED monopoly, and each one of their competitors knows how valuable that was.
What MD or CEO will not want the cache of being head of the team that negotiated a licence or the purchase of MED / FUM, if the opportunity that presented itself with Viagra is to be replicated with MED, and the global market for ED products is much larger now than it was when Viagra was first marketed.
The bad news is that Barder is not the best of negotiators, and whether any team of advisers BARDER appoints is up to the task of getting the best deal is also a moot point.