Highlights of SGEN's 4Q/YE 2012 conference call - 2/12/2013
Here are some, and most likely not all, of the highlights from today's conference call:
- Seemingly referring to the flat 2013 revenue guidance, CEO Clay Siegall and other company execs hint that they are low-balling because they can only include a small – probably unrealistically small – factor for off-label use of Adcetris. “I would look to the off-label has having upside,” one exec says.
- The guidance also doesn’t include any world-wide royalties from Millennium, which apparently will start arriving this year.
- In summary, Siegall frames current guidance as reflective of flattening phenomena that won’t persist for long (Adcetris estimates limited to currently approved indications, Canadian efforts not yet booted up, etc.). “These are short-term drivers and that’s what 2013 represents to us,” Siegall said. “We are incredibly excited about the long-term drivers…. 2013 is a year of staging for Adcetris. The growth in the new markets and the new labels are all things we are working on in 2013, so we don’t want to provide any guidance on that because we don’t have good clarity on that yet.”
- Canadian market for Adcetris (current applications) should reach roughly 5 percent of the U.S. market by the end of this year.
- Given Adcetris sales and milestones, the company expects to end 2013 with $250 million in cash. The implication is that, once again, there will be no need in the current year for a secondary and the attendant stock dilution. “We are in a strong cash position and have no debt,” Siegall said.
That's all I have. I recommend that you listen to the webcast replay.
Another implication is that if they plan to began the year with $364 mil. and end it with $250 mil. Then they plan to loose $114 mil. next year or about twice this year's. Analysts are rather short sited with their one year price targets so who knows. I'm really hoping this sets the stage for a pull back buying opportunity. Sorry.
Maui: I don't think that is true. Maybe I mis-heard that number (it came at the end of a particularly dull section of blah-blah); maybe something is missing from your calculation. But I don't see how they could end up doubling their losses. Something isn't adding up right in your calculation, imo.