← all environments

BD Asset Due Diligence & Valuation (rNPV)

Corporate Development / BD&LBusiness-development / licensing analyst

Value a clinical-stage asset to size an in-licensing or acquisition deal. The agent has read-only tools returning raw inputs (asset parameters, a phase x therapeutic-area probability-of-success table from BIO/Informa/QLS & Wong-Siah-Lo, comparable deals, and discount/modelling conventions) and must itself build a risk-adjusted NPV (rNPV): cumulative PoS from the current phase, risk-adjusted and discounted commercial value less remaining R&D, then a recommended upfront + milestone biobucket benchmarked to comparables. The deterministic answer key is reference-only.

Why this is fundable

Scarce expert who grades this
BD/licensing analyst or biotech equity analyst with valuation fluency (~$250–450/hr loaded; banker/VP rates higher)
What one decision is worth
rNPV anchors $100M–$5B+ licensing and M&A prices. A wrong PoS (e.g. using all-disease 7.9% instead of oncology ~5%) or a wrong discount rate swings the valuation by hundreds of millions and can mean overpaying upfront or losing the asset.
Real-world data sources
BIO / Informa Pharma Intelligence / QLS Advisors 'Clinical Development Success Rates and Contributing Factors 2011-2020' and Wong-Siah-Lo (2019) for PoS; EvaluatePharma-style consensus peak-sales forecasts; comparable-deal databases (e.g. DealForma / Biomedtracker / company disclosures). Curated snapshot here.

Agent tools

list_assetsget_assetget_pos_tableget_comparable_dealsget_assumptions

Expert grading rubric

Dimension5 (excellent)1 (poor)
PoS selection (phase × area)Pulls the correct therapeutic-area row and current phase, multiplies the right remaining transition probabilities (incl. the NDA/BLA->approval step) to get the cumulative PoS, and cites the BIO/Wong-Siah-Lo source.Uses the wrong area or phase, forgets the regulatory step, mixes up transition vs. cumulative PoS, or invents a success rate not in the table.
rNPV mechanicsRisk-adjusts the commercial value by the cumulative PoS AND discounts it to present value at the asset's discount rate, nets out (discounted) remaining R&D, and avoids double-counting risk between PoS and discount rate. Arithmetic is right.Forgets to risk-adjust or to discount, double-counts risk, ignores remaining R&D, or makes arithmetic errors that move the rNPV materially.
Assumption qualityUses sensible, stated assumptions for peak sales, the revenue ramp/years factor, discount rate (appropriate to stage), margin, and LoE timing — consistent with the returned inputs and the assumption conventions.Picks an unjustified discount rate or revenue horizon, ignores LoE/margin, or makes assumptions inconsistent with the asset's returned parameters.
Deal recommendation & comparables benchmarkingTranslates the rNPV into a concrete upfront + biobucket (+ royalty) range, anchors the upfront as a sensible fraction of rNPV for the phase, and benchmarks against the comparable deals returned for the area/phase.Gives no concrete numbers, an upfront untethered from the rNPV, or ignores the comparable deals entirely.
Evidence faithfulnessEvery PoS, peak-sales, cost, and comp figure traces to a tool output; no fabricated numbers; the model is stated transparently and is reproducible.Hallucinates PoS/peak-sales/comp numbers, contradicts the returned inputs, or hides an opaque/irreproducible valuation.

Example queries

Trajectories

model panel (compare side by side)

ModelProviderTierJudge 1–5Verdict
Claude Opus 4.8anthropicfrontier3.4flawed
Claude Haiku 4.5anthropicsmall3.0flawed
GPT (frontier)openaifrontier2.8flawed
GPT-4o miniopenaismall2.2flawed