TL;DR: Keep engaging on X—the outside perspective is valuable despite the noise. Pharma executives’ career incentives can push them to overpay for “safe” assets, while small biotech investors may uncover overlooked opportunities using AI, novel data, and unique analyses. More dialogue could improve investment decisions: even one insightful question could save billions and help get treatments to patients more efficiently. @DaveARicks Some thoughts I wanted to pass along for you to consider, as I find your effort to engage directly with the community a big positive to us (even if you're still deciding on whether it is on your end): 1) Though it might be uncomfortable at times, I've personally found the net benefit of the discourse to outweigh the annoying downsides (also, the "mute" feature for less-than-value-add posters on X can be your friend if you haven't yet located it) 2) I hope you find it a useful way to communicate in a much more direct way with the world, and in this case, a subset of people who are passionate about investing. Your personal touch on your posts has been refreshing 3) I've had the opportunity to interact with senior pharma BD and R&D pharma executives (including a few who are my personal and professional friends) and personally know a good deal of biotech fund managers. My opinion is that there is an echo chamber that can exist within any organization or industry sub-group, primarily due to different incentive structures and personalities of those who gravitate to different types of careers. While I think you're right to point out there's a lot of self-interested individuals on X, the principal/agent problem exists at all levels. My feedback would be that, from an outside perspective, pharma business executives are always weighing their own personal advancement and job risk with what ultimately is the best decision for the company. That can sometimes lead them to be at odds with finding the best risk-adjusted opportunities that synergize well with existing and future company infrastructure and strategic objectives, and instead to favor assets that is the least likely to be a black mark on their career. That leads to, in my opinion, a lot of overpaying for "de-risked biology" and vulnerability for the product to achieve an attractive ROIC 4) As you know, the culture set within the institution, and the incentive structure, has a huge impact on how that manifests. Pharma has human and capital resources and data that we on the buyside dream we would have access to, and one day I hope perhaps we can collaborate better with pharma, at least at arms-length, in order to get drugs to market more efficiently. But small funds and some individuals have something else that I think is special: a drive to innovate the capital allocation and investment process in what has historically been a very inefficient capital allocation industry (LLY is more of the exception than the rule). We're working on a lot of really cool ways to integrate AI, statistics, alternative longitudinal patient data, and market data to find truly mispriced assets using a lot of novel approaches. We've been able to get conviction on programs that have worked (or haven't worked) through this innovation that, from my interactions with pharma, have not been fully explored on their end. If we can do it with a de minimus amount of resources compared to pharma, why not start a dialogue to see how we bridge that gap? We'll never understand your business to the extent you do, but I do think we can compare in certain areas as it relates to predicting probabilities of success, market opportunities, and assigning value to that under a variety of market regimes. Thought partnership sometimes requires grinding through a lot of bad fit ideas to find the one that changes the direction of a company or reinforces a strategic objective. 5) In my experience, a good thesis comes down to 2-3 key questions that need to be answered and a ton of boxes and ticking and tying that needs to be done. Sometimes it takes a unique perspective to consider how one can get an edge on those unique questions -- there's a lot of completely odd and self-serving takes on X, but it only takes one good question or one new risk pointed out that your team hasn't yet considered to save $1-$10bn+ in cash. Hopefully that's net helpful at the end of the day -- the patients really do matter and the world is dependent on us all to find ways to deliver therapies to them with increasing efficiency and reduced sunk costs.