@jackwscannell.bsky.social
Pinned
Value in biopharma R&D is sensitive to decision quality. So it should be a surprise that current DCF models confuse bad decisions to keep bad candidates with good decisions to keep good ones. John Mellnik and I have a pre-print which puts decision quality into valuation. arxiv.org/abs/2503.22117
Standard biotech valuation models treat the odds of progression at successive stages of the process as if they are statistically independent. But we do upstream science specifically to change the downstream odds. To reflect this reality in valuation, see here: arxiv.org/abs/2503.22117
Tripartite models for estimating the value of drug candidates and decision tools
Consider two similar drug companies with access to similar chemical libraries and synthesis methods, who each run an R&D program. The programs have the same number of stages, which each take the same ...
arxiv.org
April 7, 2025 at 3:09 PM
Standard biotech valuation models treat the odds of progression at successive stages of the process as if they are statistically independent. But we do upstream science specifically to change the downstream odds. To reflect this reality in valuation, see here: arxiv.org/abs/2503.22117
Value in biopharma R&D is sensitive to decision quality. So it should be a surprise that current DCF models confuse bad decisions to keep bad candidates with good decisions to keep good ones. John Mellnik and I have a pre-print which puts decision quality into valuation. arxiv.org/abs/2503.22117
April 4, 2025 at 3:45 PM
Value in biopharma R&D is sensitive to decision quality. So it should be a surprise that current DCF models confuse bad decisions to keep bad candidates with good decisions to keep good ones. John Mellnik and I have a pre-print which puts decision quality into valuation. arxiv.org/abs/2503.22117