I think that THOR management will follow through on a promise to SHOP THOR if they can't create significant value. I think $25/S will be the price � and soon. Here is why:
1- THOR has about $2/Share in short term investments and no debt.
2- THOR will continue to generate cash earnings and add to the above.
3- The continued breakdowns is a disappointment, but will act as the driver for a buyout. The reasons are:
a) the enhanced-inflow-valve to be approved in this quarter and will solve a significant set of problems as will the enhanced-bearings. Both of these solutions will be in place by Q1 2004 and Q3 2004 respectively. The solution to those problems will be a positive for an acquirer. Don�t forget that THOR�s hiring binge is only months old and the FDA must approve fixes.This takes time. That is why we are still seeing that many problems. But don�t forget that 2 deaths/quarter on 250 HMxves /per quarter represents 0.8 % vs 17% death rate for REMATCH � a HUGE improvement.
b) Yes, there are numerous smaller problems, but these also will be solved by the significant hiring of Quality Assurance and High Tech individuals as evidenced. This effort by THOR which is now in place will also be a positive for an acquirer.
3- The only other PULSATILE competitor, the Novacor, still has serious STROKE problems with their FINAL SOLUTION. The enhanced e-ptfe is the end of the line. Here is Bryden's August NOVACOR STROKE statement which I will pick to pieces to back-up what I claim:
a) BRYDEN AUGUST STATEMENT
�During the quarter, evidence continued to build that the incidence of
stroke is substantially reduced when the ePTFE inflow conduit is used with Novacor LVAS implants. As at July 15, 2003, a total of 137 implants had used the ePTFE conduit in the U.S., Europe and Canada with incidence of stroke of 10.9%, of which 3.6% was attributed to specific causes unrelated to the device.�
b)In REMATCH, the stroke rate was 7%. This number was for ALL strokes REGARDLESS of their origin.
c) We all know that there would have been a certain number of STROKES for CHF patients SOLELY because of their condition. That is where Bryden�s 3.6% came from. So if we SUBTRACT 3.6% from the HEARTMATE REMATCH 7% strokes, the HEARTMATE strokes are 7% - 3.6% = 3.4% STROKE rate.
d) Therefore the NOVACOR (7.3%) has MORE THAN DOUBLE the HEARTMATE. The exact multiplier is:
7.3/3.4 = 2.15
e) However, the MULTIPLIER IS IN REALITY even GREATER since the average AGE of the NOVACOR patients are in their 40s as compared to the average REMATCH AGE of about 58. The YOUNGER patients exhibit much LESS STROKES.
f) THEREFORE, I would estimate that:
"The Novacor STROKE rate is about QUADRUPLE the Heartmate.
g) The NOVACOR STROKE calculations is one of the reasons that the FDA will need much longer to evaluate
h) Moreover, The two papers I posted concerning the NOVACOR THROMBOEMBOLIC events confirm their high stroke rate..
i) We can conclude from this that THOR will eventually improve the HMxve MECHANICAL DURABILITY while WHRT is STUCK with a CLOT machine. This makes the NOVACOR a non-competitor in the very near future and another positive for an acquirer.
4- I think a $25 bid is a good possibility and it will happen soon.
5- OK let the flames begin with personal attacks on me rather than any substance.
If there is a product recall because of a FDA directive after their review of the adverse event data, then this thing will be trading sub- $5.
Meanwhile, the pumpers here ignore this along with the negative financial impact to be caused by the DMED IRMA acquisition. I guess they get PAID to ignore it! LOL
Isn't is supposed to *close* below support before you start sounding unnecessary alarmist noise? Technically speaking, I don't think intraday levels are all that significant. Of course, I'm frequently ill informed.
Yes, it is interesting. Is one a week a reasonable number for each trained surgeon? I have no idea.
A nice piece of analysis would be to list all the hospitals that did LVAD implants with the number of units each hospital implanted for the last two years.
Now that reimbursement is higher, we could make growth rate assumptions for each hospital (I would not add any new hospitals for next year because the reimbursement start date is up in the air and because of product training) and hopefully come up with a reasonable number of LVAD's for next year.
You don't find this interesting (from your post)....Hopkins last year implanted 32 ventricular assist devices, up from 15 in 2001, and lost about $20,000 per case. The volume of implantation should continue to increase, but Hundt said the CMS decision will only cut Hopkins' losses slightly. Future implantations will likely cost the hospital between $10,000 and $20,000, he said.....
They implanted over 100% more devices despite losing $20,000 per device. Now they say this loss will be cut and half and there is now a new, larger group of patients covered. How many will they do now? 60, 70 , 90?
Only a fool would call another person's opinion foolish.
Your revenue numbers seem quite reasonable for next year:
$84 million LVADs
$57.5 million TCI
$7.5 million Vectra
So, approximately $149 million revenue for next year which actually is low since they are on a revenue run rate of $144 million for this year. What revenue categories are we missing? I do not have the annual report handy.