VPHM income for 2007 is $1.05, for 2008 $.85. Now reverse the numbers and you get SLXP income. SLXP income for 2007 is $.85, for 2008 is $1.04.
SLXP revenue has grown at an average of 40% to 50% year over year and the growth will continue above 25% for future years. SLXP has diversified products and it spends $20 MM in R&D every quarter. SLXP has no debt, $54 cash (Before acquiring two new drugs, it had $76 MM). SLXP has only 47 MM shares. Then why it is at $13 while VPHM at $16?
It must be that half a billion VPHM has in the bank vs. SLXP's paltry 50 million don't ya think? Could also be the pipeline and estimates of VPHM bringing in anywhere between 500 million to a 1 billion in sales in 2009.
one seems to be a business chasing cookie-cutter drug packaging and hawking, the other, a business paradigm of pursuing unmet, critical-care needs with very unique drugs.
The former doesnt require any unique executive and scientific talent to run, and is easier for WS herds to grasp.
I have worked in two companies whose stock tripled (for one; the other was perhaps so depressed that it went 5x over some two yrs) before the street caught on (these were not new unheard of companies either). And for three years after we knew the business had peaked and was on decline, the street had marked the companies as the best picks. You had to pay big bucks to get their analyst reports! And some of the top accredited analysts were recommending. Because of the standing of some of these analysts a lot of MFs had bought the stock (too late) or held on to it, keeping it afloat even when hints of decline started showing in corporate reports. Two separate experiences in two different decades.