% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • mcj96 mcj96 Mar 19, 2011 8:37 PM Flag

    SVNT v RDEA based on Nasdaq data

    Next yr(2012),consensus rev estimates for SVNT are $110M v "$18M" for RDEA. Also, consensus earnings estimates for 2014 are currently .84/sh for SVNT and ".22/sh" for RDEA. SVNT's lead drug is already approved and launched while RDEA's lead drug is still several years away from approval IF... their p3 study and results have no glitches. SVNT has more cash than than RDEA;SVNT currently is selling for almost $6 bucks less than consensus price target estimates of 15/sh(very undervalued), while RDEA currently is only $4 bucks away from its price target of $32/sh. What I find amazing(perplexing is more like it) is that both SVNT and RDEA currently have an identical mkt cap. This boggles the mind given that SVNT has more cash than RDEA,has an approved orphan biologic that works very well..unlike RDEA, sells at a greater discount to consensus price target estimates levels than RDEA, and is estimated to have forward earnings that are almost 4x higher than RDEA. Short RDEA and go long SVNT. That's what consensus estimates and current metrics and fundementals support IMHO.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • < That is incorrect. Cash on the balance sheet is an asset. Regardless of how it was obtained. That is acct 101. Cash does not disapear once it is barrowed. Just because I barrow $100 from you doesn't mean I am down $100. I still have your $100 until I spend it. >

      actually they're offset on the liability side in essence by more than $100. they have to pay all the money back plus 4.75% interest per year if not mistaken. one cannot make the case that stockholder equity is $230 million more now now than a few months ago because they're required to pay it all back.

    • I just played with my calculator....SVNT currently trades at only *2.7x CASH(approx $280M) vs RDEA which currently trades at approx *4.3x CASH(approx $155M). What's most glaring is that RDEA will likely burn all of its cash before it gets any of its drugs approved. SVNT at only 2.7x cash AND..its lead biologic is ALREADY.. approved AND.. soon to be filed and launched in the EU, vs RDEA at 4.3x cash(which will likely need an addtl sh raise down the road if it goes it alone)AND.. will have no drugs approved for another few years, if at all. SVNT-BY FAR- is the most undervalued of the two no matter how you slice or dice it.

      • 2 Replies to mcj96
      • RDEA currently trades for ***129 TIMES...2014 estimates(Nasdaq #s) vs only ***12x 2014 estimates for SVNT. SVNT has 2 products approved and launched, and sells for 2.7x cash while RDEA has zero products approved,sells for 5x cash and trades at a 129 multiple of forward earnings estimates. SVNT .85(14E) vs RDEA .22(14E). As Rodney Dangerfield and Andrew Dice Clay would say: *Un-be-liev-a-ble (*must be pronounced with a very thick,obnoxious, Brooklynese accent)

      • I don't necessarily agree. You say RDEA will burn cash. Heck, SVNT has been doing that for the past 3 years. 2 stock offerings to raise $$$ then the recent debt offering. Do you have any idea how much cash SVNT has raised and spent from those offerings. And the $280 million you suggest SVNT has is offset by the debt from the recent offering of $230 million that might be converted. We've been diluted by 25-30% from the new shares and that ignores the most recent raise of cash. You are not comparing apples to apples.

    • jump loser end your pain

    • your a joke. You have no life no friends and your going to end up killing yourself one day which I think its funny

    • well i guess the only thing i can think of then is they have actual revenue coming in and they have almost 4$ a share in cash. they do have more debt than svnt. their price to sales is about 25, and svnts is 125, so if it evened out then, presumably svnt could be worth 5x that subtracting the share differential of about 3x. which would give svnt about the same price as rdea.
      my thinking may be a little backwards but papa i will defer to you on this one, cause i dont really know if im on course or wandering in the woods

      • 1 Reply to riordan_2_2000
      • The big difference is that Ardea's revenue comes from milestone payments from Bayer. They have no products, so they have no revenue from products. It's a long and twisty path from where they are now to FDA approval.

        Now, clearly, it's a good thing that they have a relationship in place with Bayer, and the street is rewarding them for that. I think the company is similar to HGSI and their partnership with GSK in that regard. But, compare their pipeline, much of which is a long way from approval, with Savient's: Savient doesn't have much of a pipeline, but what it does have is FDA approval and a plan for expanding the label. Right now, the street is discounting Savient's future revenue down to some ridiculous number because of execution risk, but that won't be true in six months. However, six months from now, Ardea will merely be a couple of quarters further along on various clinical trials. At that point, I expect you'll see quite a bit of difference between the RDEA's market cap and SVNT's, unless Bayer buys Ardea before that.

        Also, the market is looking at RDEA's future revenue with rose-colored glasses. When they get a little closer to actually having a product on the market, you'll see more skepticism about the numbers. This happened to HGSI as well with Benlysta, right after the FDA Advisory Committee meeting. People were suddenly thinking, "Hey, we have a drug with limited efficacy, where half the revenues get split with GSK, and it's trading at a market cap of $5B. Maybe that's optimistic." It's easy to be optimistic this early in the process.

        Anyway, I'm not really worried about RDEA's market cap, or HGSI's either. I'm not even really that worried about SVNT's market cap in the short term - I think it's undervalued here, which is why I'm long, and I think the market will recognize that eventually. Even if it gets to $8, as used to repeat on a thrice-daily basis, I'll still think it's undervalued - even more so at that price. The only things I'm worried about are:

        1). Will Savient get the deals worked out with the various insurance payers that they need to sell, and
        2). Will Savient get the market penetration they need to generate the revenues they should be capable of.

        So far, from what I'm seeing, they're well on the way to accomplishing both of those things.

    • ugggh, people come on, do some homework. yes they have the same market cap and all this, you wanna know why there price is more?? svnt has 70 mil outstanding shares, and Rdea has 23 mil. so if you average it out, and svnt had the same shares then svnt would be over 30/sh. you have to look at all the numbers, not just the ones you wanna look at.

      • 1 Reply to riordan_2_2000
      • I agree that mcj ignores statistics that don't agree with his point of view, but in this case you are dead wrong.

        Market cap is the number of shares times the price per share. For RDEA and SVNT to have the same market cap just doesn't make sense. If SVNT had half as many shares and the cost per share doubled, it would still have the same market cap.

    • when i think of all the time & energy u put into this stock.........i think of a great great waste........
      what a peculiar bird.