Cityslicker99 and Buckeyes - I'm very glad to see you two taking up this position and the numbers you have been using, it makes mine look conservative by comparison. 

As someone else mentioned earlier, the price they will likely get for ABL in China and India will be somewhat lower that $1,500 per year. Also please remember that when we struck the deal with Hepalink, they own China and territories market for ABL and Zenith Capital Corp is entitled to a 6% royalty plus sales milestones. Using the gross sales for the Hepalink territories will give you a very incorrect valuation. Using Buckeyes matrix 185 million X 10% X $1,500 would give you $27.75 billion on the low end. Reworked a little using the same matrix taking China out of the gross would look something like this; 100 mil X 10% X $1,500 = $15 billion X 6% = $900 million plus India at $12.75 billion to give you an area total of $13.65 billion versus $27.75 billion. Given that the price of the drug will likely be a somewhat lower by maybe 1/2 or more it still gives you a value of over $6 billion for those 2 areas only.

I used only the G8 countries, those patients that can afford to pay $2,000 per year for their medication for the valuations that I came up with and only the US number of CKD patients to come up with gross annual sales in the $25 to $54 billion range. Needless to say, no matter how you cut it the numbers are really robust.

When I value a new mine for example, I want to make sure I can get money I lend them back in no more than 4 years and have at least 4 X's that length of time of production so that the company and its shareholders are able to make a profit as well. For a company with 8 years of profitable reserves I would want to make sure I can get totally paid back within 2 years.

For RVX, using the above formula, if BP was to take a stab at this and had to do a Bolt On trial that may take 2 additional years plus the normal 1.5 years from trial completion to drug on the shelf, we are going to be about 3.5 to 4 years to have drug on the shelf. Patent protection goes out to 2034 at this time. We are almost at 2020 right now. So how would BP fare with a $3 to $4 billion purchase price today using just the diabetic/CKD potential after completing a Bolt On trial at a cost of say $100 million over the next 2 years. At the low end of peak sales their payback would be only 2 to 3 months.

Of course, I have to say that there may be some potential on the cognitive side as well that could make it just a little more enticing, as if that was necessary. 

BP will have to have a very strong belief of that a Bolt On trial would give them the statistical significance that they will need for success. This mornings conference call may give us a better understanding of the possibilities that are here for BP to take advantage of. With their size and scale, in my mind this is a no brainer. Most of them have the ability to do this whole transaction using no cash what’s so ever. Do the purchase by issuing shares and the Bolt On via cash flow. If anything at all comes out of CTAD that's exciting, which I fully expect, it will be like the cherry on top of the Sunday for them.

A couple of things from the presentation at the AHA that confound me, with a 50% RRR in the <60 eGFR subgroup and a 41% RRR for first hospitalization for congestive heart failure is there not a moral or ethical reason that these patients shouldn't be able to remain on ABL now and to have another trial or Bolt On start ASAP to help patients with these ailments? Those numbers are massive and statistically significant.

tada