Product revenues were only $592,000, versus estimate of $6.9 million.
Earnings per share, excluding the collaboration & license rev, was a loss of $1.53 vs estimate of $1.46.
NOT looking good. Product rev of $592,000 --- not good
It's pretty sad how tunnel-visioned, blind, biased, or silly biotech longs or pumpers can be. AZN is an $80 billion large-cap pharma giant with annual revenues of more than $23 billion. Why would the CEO or CFO waste time in a CC talking about a prospect that might add about $100 million to first-year sales???? It's really pathetic to see something positive for RLYP from this. Need to get real.
$2.7 billion is obviously not chump change. But then again, for a company that has $7 billion in cash on its balance sheet and generates more than $6 billion annually in cash flow, it's not a huge amount. Note, too, that the $2.7 billion is a long-term investment, intended to generate a return over the next 15 years or so. So, unlike small one-drug companies like RLYP, a pdufa for a drug that may add $100 million the first year is not a big deal. It's a big deal to you and other RLYP dreamers/speculators but not for AZN.
As for the revenue potential, do you seriously believe it's $1B - $6B? And what does that huge range say to you? Could it perhaps be $500 million - $6b? Or maybe $400 million to $500 million? All made up numbers. And if it were really within your range, do you think ZS would've sold for $2.7 billion. And, again, if your numbers were reasonable, why is RLYP's market cap sub-$1 billion. You've got all this takeover hype and all this huge sales potential hype and the company is worth less than $1B. What does that tell you????
well, i wish you luck kwarter. azn and atelion should also fir a bunch of their experts who reviewed by veltassa and zs9.
the stock was five to six dollars lower before the bogus reuters story and you say the downside is 2-3 dollars. how silly is that???? you say the upside is 25-30, where do you get these pie-in-the-sky completely meaningless numbers????
a lot of what you say is reasonable. the only thing i would maybe disagree with you is the 50% discount factor. 1. the takeout price was $2.7 not $2.9. 2. AZN outbid another suitor for ZS so clearly overpaid. 3. Biotech was approx 40% more expensive at the outset of the takeover talks for ZS. 4. Veltassa has a black box warning. 5. ZS-9 belongs to a far tougher potential rival, meaning that veltassa will face a tougher rival than ZS will. All in all, i think a far deeper discount is warranted, assuming anyone wanted to buy RLYP, which I don't believe.
they may be temporary but does that matter when the company has approx $235 million in cash and is going to lose $400 million in the next two years? they run out of money well before the "temporary" costs go away.
I'm not sure why they call retail investors investors. They should be called clueless gamblers or pigeons. Have any of you been at a blackjack table with players who didn't have a clue on strategy, strategies that have been studied and developed based on statistics? Haven't you mumbled to yourself, "idiots?" I'm sorry to say this but I feel the same way when I read some of the stuff on this board, from gamblers and pigeons who don't have a clue. Quite frankly, even "gambler" may be too generous, since when you gamble, you at least have a chance.
As i see it, you're not investing here, you're not even gambling. you're tossing your money away to the people who underwrite all those stories about takeovers and huge markets.
I've already said it's not chump change so I'm not sure why you continue to make a "big deal" about it. I also don't understand the connection between cutting costs, which is critical to managing ongoing earnings, and the importance of a relatively small long-term investment in what a company discusses in its cc. Does discussing zs9 in the cc, just before pdufa, change anything, whereas cutting cost does affect analysts' modeling activity. As to all your rambling about losing future revenues, what???? Again, what does that have to do with mgmt not discussing zs9, which will be a drop in the bucket for some time to come.
Good question, how many Americans have recurrent hyperkalemia? Lie to me and give me a number. We have zero idea how many americans have "recurrent" hyperkalemia, so what's whatever penetration rate for some nebulous estimate? Your estimates are higher than $6B, haha, lol. What the heck do i care what some anonymous joe blow on a message board's estimate is? So you think the $6B figure is meaningful figure? So how stupid was ZS to sell for $2.7B a drug that targets a $6 billion market? How stupid is Wall street to price RLYP at below $1 billion when it has an FDA approved drug that targets such a gigantic market???
So ZS sold for $2.7 billion because its drug wasn't approved yet. So why is RLYP, which has an approved drug, which so many of you believe is superior to ZS9, selling for less than $1 billion. "all sorts of explanation" ... give me a few.
is any of this relevant? less than or more than, who cares! it's still $595K. if you're happy with that, i'm happy for you. good luck.
such a short comment but oh so many problems with it. you think just the shorts are playing this like a videogame? you don't think the longs could get burnt pretty bad? they are clearly taking it on the chin today, how do you figure the stock is undervalued? based on what measures?? what are the solid foundations? is losing a ton of money this year and next the basis of a solid foundation? how huge is that market???? how did the "huge market" and "fda approved" drug work out for vivus, arena, orexigen, mannkind, keryz, rockwell, i could go on but i'm sure you get the gist.
first an absolute fact: i am not short this stock.
you don't have time to explain a base, whatever that is, but you the have time to give me all those lame excuses.
perception of dilution??? absent a never happening buyout, company runs out of money by yearend, meaning company has to either borrow money or sell stock. who's going to lend money to a money-bleeding company, so hardly just a "perception" of dilution. A real possibility.
biotech has lost some 40% in the past year or so, so how can you argue that the headwind hasn't gotten stronger for rlyp.
you're responding to me, and, again, i repeat, i'm not short, because deep down inside you know i'm making some valid points. and just for the record, not every biotech with an fda-approved drug makes money, which is a narrative pumpers like to push to unsuspecting investors.
not that it really matters but i have a masters degree in international finance and have been an equity analyst for 30 years. i would also guess there are an estimated 100 analysts working in different brokerage houses and other financial institutions that i've trained over the past three decades. and just one other bit of information, you won't learn about one-time licensing fees and collaboration revenues being included (or excluded) in accounting 101 or any financial analysis courses. but you will learn about them from analysts who've followed drug and biotech companies for more years than i like to admit. so you can take all those facts and do with them as you please. And you can certainly include yourself among the posters you call clueless.
the guy writes an article a day about companies in every industry imaginable. how much research do u think he really does? how much do u thing he knows about the companies he writes about? he only cares about page clicks so he can make money.
have you heard that old wall street saw about a fool and his money...... being soon parted? "learning who to follow around here" ..... you do realize HERE is a yahoo message board, populated by anonymous pumpers and bashers with all sorts of agendas, right??? If you're new to RLYP, you looking in the wrong place for dd.
AZN's experts looked at both zs and rlyp and decided to by zs. if zs proves to be a dud, what does that say about veltassa's prospects?