Strictly by the numbers:
15K patients worldwide
@ $300K/year per patient
$4.5B/year in revenues
Divided by the 28M shares outstanding
So the earnings based valuation model is is:
$1,600/share at a PE of 10
$3,150/share at a PE of 20
$6,300/share at a PE of 40
Makes a buyout irresistible.
When we cross $100/share and then when patient count exceeds 500, I wonder what Censored will do. He'll probably try to sue Wiki for telling him the wrong ratio of people who have HoFH.
At $100/share Censored will be long gone. Didn't he lose his $20 and has to go back to work now? Nah, can't with Obama running the country into the ground, there are no jobs to be had.
Very generic advice for you yassen, assuming you genuinely think this stock is headed for the moon and are not some mindless pumper. I've followed AEGR only peripherally but watch HPTX much more closely, which has a similar story. Look up typical uptake for drugs treating metabolic disorders. It's never 100%, and usually not even close. Also look up what companies charge for orphan drugs vs. what they receive in reimbursements. No way they receive 300k/pt. 200k/pt is more likely. Look up, in particular, the automatic medicaid discounts applied to expensive drugs (in the high double digits). Surely a substantial portion of these pts are on medicaid. Last, look up the difference between *revenues* and *earnings*. P/E is a price to... wait for it... EARNINGS ratio. Hope this helps.
Thank you for your well intentioned, though misguided, attempt. Your Hyperion example is inaccurate because people aren't dying from hyperammonemia in most cases. HoFH is terminal 100% of the time. Moving on though, the manufacturing cost is negligible at around $0.10/pill at 2x a day so 730/year at 10-cents is $73/year/patient. The Medicaid discounts again don't apply as Medicaid already agreed to the $300K price tag during the negotiations with insurance carriers. The only stipulation was the standard clause that the company not provide a lower price to another insurance carrier for the same product/dose at the same quantities (still allowing for a discount for bulk buying which is less likely in an orphan drug).
Last, there is a difference between revenue and earnings, though in this case, the difference is negligible. With the potential for $4.5B in revenues, the annual cost of the company operations at $68.74M/year is irrelevant. This isn't a situation that requires significant marketing to the masses like some pain reliever. So minimal marketing costs. Remember, these kids are dying from HoFH and this is the only real choice. Sure you can argue the $300K vs $200K price tag, but you know what? If they can't afford $300K they can't afford $200K either.
Still, from the $4.5B we can remove $100M for operations, R&D, continuing monitoring, and the $1.095M for manufacturing the pills. That assumes a 50% rise in costs - even though no pharma has ever incurred that high of a jump. So that takes us to $4.4B divided by 28M shares and we land at $157.142/share for EARNINGS PER SHARE. Take that up to a PE of 20 and get $3,142.84//share.
A P/E of 40 lands us at $6,285.68/share so the other details you raise are irrelevant.
Even at only a 50% market penetration, it is still $3,142.84/share.
So no matter how you slice it, this stock is grossly UNDERvalued.