No, actually, I'm using earnings. They are burning $38.93M/year and if they earn $1.8B then the burn of $38.93M is largely irrelevant. Sure it knocks earnings down to $1,761.17M but that doesn't change the math much.
You would be better off arguing the patient population, though the deeper you dig into that topic, the sooner you realize that it is actually more than 10,000 and not 6,000 patients.
No, actually system architect, qwport is correct. You took 300,000 (top line revenue per patient) and multiplied it by 6000 patients. Thart 1.8 billion is before expenses, and the manufacturing and marketing expenses are significantly higher than their current burn rate of 38 mill. You can expexct a 30-40% bottom line, and yes I also take issue with your patient base, because even if there are 6000 AEGR will only get half of them (not all are insured, not all will use JUX, etc) so your 1.8 billion becomes 900M, and that is 180m to 360m net, divided by 25 mill shares equals 7-14 EPS, which in this rosy scenario wouldake AEGR a $100-$200 stock. But I think the patient population is more like 3,000, and they will get half of that. That is, until REGN's drug comes on the market.