The delay is nothing to be concerned about. The last thing a judge wants to do is to appear hasty when another branch of the government is being sued for, in part, being "capricious and arbitrary." This is a ground-breaking issue in that it is the first test of a biosimilar pathway for approval. Since Sandoz is allowed to distribute until the decision, it doesn't affect short-term sales anyway. The case is headed for trial either way as I read the tea leaves. Volume is so light that I don't think the recent dip, as stark as it may be, is much to worry about.
Hey Pharm***, so why are you long?
What are you looking for in a share price before you bail? and when do you estimate that will be?
Thanks for the learned post, a rarity here.
I'm long just don't know how long to prepare myself to wait and when is the top and time to bail.
Thanks for a well phrased question. Please refer to my posted reply in Law.com as for my reasons in detail.
Personally, I wouldn't give my best friend stock advice as like most people my success has been mixed over the years. The short of it, pardon the pun, is that MNTA developed the technology to open up the entire biologic/biosimilar universe if things go their way in court.
It's up to Sandoz to manufacture, distribute, negotiate contracts, and so forth. MNTA's overhead is low notwithstanding the development charges they have to pay; but, that's good news. They're only paying their share of the development charges if their biosimilar is approved. That's the way I read it anyway.
I believe in being in a stock for 5 years or not be in it at all. I did hedge with a $17.50 put option for MNTA in case the stock plummets to below $12 on the news. I fear a single-digit if that's the case. In that event, I'll buy more of the stock because I feel as certain as I can be that it's going to $50 in 5 years.
The put is only an insurance policy; however, as I also have a $17.50 September call. I profit whether the stock goes below $12.50 or over $22.50 on the options. I placed the options plays so I'd benefit either way the news broke, as long as that is, the underlying stock moved substantially.
At the risk of "sounding long";-) I tend to agree. The Teva CEO did state in a press release, however, that they believe they are close. Personally I don't take much stock in those sort of things, pardon the pun, because a CEO is often times the corporate cheerleader and is biased. I value my information on more neutral analysts.
If I was a short why would I wait until the stock was at $15? Wouldn't I "spread rumors" at $25 first?
These are facts unless otherwise stated as opinion; do with them what you will.
These 2 posts today are the only 2 I ever posted. It's numbskulls like you that are always searching for ulterior motives, or who simply like to argue, who prevent those of us with something more compelling to say than "will the stock go up today?" from providing our 2-cents worth.
Personally, I don't even read those as who cares what some stranger with no insight has to say? Those are just a waste of time.
I bought my 1st batch of MNTA on July 23rd at $18.79. It had come down $3 or $4 then. It the cost averaged down to $17.77. I have both call and put options (the put for a hedge) at $17.50 for September contracts. I'm a big winner if it goes long big; I'm a small loser if it goes short big.
I can vouch for most of what the OP has said about contracting, price and Teva situation with major GPO. The system he is talking about is HCA and they use Healthtrust or "HPG" as their GPO. And when the generic hit HPG send out an alert to NOT buy generic but stick with Lovenox. The reason, and again it seems strange, is because they are waiting for Teva's generic version. My best guess is that they had a contract in place not only for Generic Lovenox but other drugs as well.
If you look at my previous posts I had posted that SA was contracting with GPO's for a discount and beating Sandoz for hospital business. I was called a short then. lol
Sure; but, let me preface this by writing that for a more extensive discussion please Google: "Drugs WAC," or some string like that.
(It stands for women and children;-), just not in this case.) In this case it stands for Wholesale Acquisition Cost. There is a move recently, primarily among payers (i.e., insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid), to replace AWP (Average Wholesale Price) because no wholesaler really pays AWP. For our purposes you can think of either WAC or AWP as the "invoice" price that a car dealer pays.
In determining pricing it will be up to Sandoz to beat the contract price for brand name Lovenox to the ultimate user (primarily hospitals). In order to sell it for that the wholesaler must then also be discounted enough to make a profit. If the margin is too slim, or if the hospital price is too close to the branded product, then there can be inventory issues insofar as the wholesaler will initially stock up but there won't be enough retail demand for them to replenish their stock lost via sales. So, in turn, it becomes Sandoz's problem.
Our wholesaler, one of the Big 3, has loads of it available to us. We can see in the wholesaler software only what is available to our particular hospital. I work for a large hosptial chain who has a contract with SA via our buying group for the name brand at 40% off of WAC. That's cheaper than the Sandoz/MNTA version; so, we won't be switching. Purportedly most of the country has the same deal. Apparently our buying group, which is a consortium between our company and others, is working with Teva to get a contract from them if and when their's is approved.