Based on recent news flow (DHHS planned regulation changes bolstered by the Tenncare deal putting a serious dent in the LT Bunavail sales trajectory short thesis. Nice to be acknowledged as the "good guy" amidst the latest round of Washington pharma price gouging rhetoric.
Also based on probably an 80%+ chance of FDA clearance for Bel, a lucrative royalty rate, and milestone payout that oblitirates any balance sheet concerns along with the overhang.
IMO, if the major holder ETF's are pressured by the broader markets and IBB weakness, a well above average opportunity to accumulate on the cheap or possibly even cheaper has now materialized for anyone following the BDSI story.
From a valuation standpoint and factoring the above, anything under 500M would appear very compelling. Sub 400M MC from my viewpoint looks like outstanding value!
JMHO & 2 cents!
Shopping for an island Aezs?
Here's a slogan for ya, freshly minted out of Madison ave.
Rikers Island and low life spamsters,,,,,,,,,Perfect together!
Cash preserving personnel cuts to extend the on hand working capital runway thru P3 data & beyond into CY'16 on it's own looks like SOP, but combined with Nov positive P2 end point achieve plus auction of pre-clinic equipment has the feel of a bare bones reduction to just clinical pipeline/ongoing trials to be packaged to SD or other entity.
Cut away all the non-essentials in prep for the large acquiring player closing the deal.
IMO, the stock should have popped to 1.80-2.00 just on the recent data released in Nov + cash (Jan effect delayed reaction?) not including the SD partnership/asset so 300M+ in it's entirety appears well within the realm of reason.
FWIW, I accumulated a position on the rising 200 (2.80) after a long absence from MT & Co until the debt overhang/street angst signaled a confirmed gradual dissipation via pay down & refi. Now net debt @79M (ttl debt less cash) and manageable with street focus now shifting primarily to value/potential of business segments & outlook incl patent port.
A) Re; patents, excellent move monetizing IP via partnership with 3rd party patent enforcement entity eliminating go it alone litigation costs thus mitigating risks. Important Q answered right there for me.
B) 3Q confirmed low point for gov't segment with return to growth ("traction") forecast for CY 15 via contracts of record (600M & 1B) anticipated funding.
C) Cisco collaboration: a build out that incorporates all phases of TCS tech & expertise.
D) Tom Brandt reiterating full year guidance for '14
E) In-house 911 mandate imminent.
No personal expectations for a 3Q beat for me. It's all about positioning for what I expect to be a strong CY '15
Not as up to date as others here, but the valuation (@EV) is attractive and the outlook over the next 6-12 months appears vastly improved.
I like it and will hold or add if low volume stupidity surfaces over the coming days.
The substance of what you post is ignored. Your posts are occasionally read as a humorous diversion!
There is a difference!
First off, the stock has retraced off the (2yr highs/,not looking at a chart this moment) "predictably" due to the soon to end Crinone licensing renewal period that extended to EOY '14. That uncertainty is now OVER!
Next, the balance sheet concerns have just recently been laid to rest by the "non-core asset sale" for 2.1M in addition to 3Q Crinone shipment ramp. The street knows this and the balance sheet looks solid upon the 3Q call at around 15M.
The bottom line is that FC has done an excellent job of transitioning the company into a viable, growing firm with loads of potential with minimal risks.
I'll be the first one to admit some skepticism in terms of what exactly could be acquired for around 20M ie; a P1 pig in a poke bio vs A retooled, expanded capability,, Molecular generating cash and projected to grow at a conservative 15% annually.
The 505(b) (2) pursuits are free shots at hyper growth backed by the reliability of the revenue generated by the service side of the business & Crinone.
The stock price IS going to soon reflect the positive progress, it's inevitable.
The above is why short interest has NO interest in betting against this company.
Nothing at all unexpected to this point.
As per the most recent 10Q (Q ending 6/31/14), total liabilities stood at 281M vs 324M cash/investments.
As far as the Actavis legal battle, all expenses incurred are reflected on the balance sheet end of each Q and is incorporated in total operating expense for the reported period.
Explain how you come up with an EV of 870M if you please!
Additionally, No off balance sheet transactions per the most recent Q filing.
OK Alex Trebek, I'll go with "pipeline positive" for $1000.
Actually it was the FDA psoriasis indication bonus followed by the ensuing Leo agreement. Prior to that event I'd say it was the Pfizer deal hitting the wires just shy of 3 years ago back in Dec '11.
Ironically the Pfizer news became public when short interest was having a field day with the stock price smashing it down into the 1.60 area at one point b/4 closing the wk at about 1.80. What followed in the weeks and months ahead wasn't very pleasant for those on the short side to put it mildly.
So here we are again and what will play out in the near term?
A/B rated Epi approval?
Another Pfizer type collaboration?
An unexpected surge in Otrexup scripts?
All of the above?
Deja Vu all over again?
A more realistic focus should be on the updated "timeline" for METIV-HCC trial enrollment completion somewhere in the area of end 4Q / Q1 for an actual PR.
The street has discounted the stock to roughly 10M - 12M above projected EOY cash, which obviously values the stock in the very low risk / very high return category based on 9/24 closing price.
B/Os do happen but the appeal at this moment is low valuation, NOT any possible take out scenario hopes.
The under statement of the century Donnie! Short interest is and has been invisible (sub 100k) throughout the Crinn licensing renewal period which IMO was a more valid reason than the typical industry CFO changing of the guard in addition to the incoming has excellent qualifications which is possibly a net gain for CBRX.
No short interest for good reason apparently. The company's prospects (near &long term) simply looks fantastic. Molecular is a great business that is poised for consistent growth (great acquisition @16M), Crinnone back on track for CY'15 with double digit growth, and the building of a 505(b)(2) product pipeline (the hyper growth wild card) funded via free cash generation!
It doesn't get much better than CBRX at current valuation for low risk / high return micro cap investing Donnie.
The MB lounge lizards are just regular fixtures indulging in their daily bash Condella fix!
They are entitled to post as they wish even if they are ignored!
In a note to clients by Wells Fargo's Matt Andrews.
Obviously bullish and without doubt based on Stendra news, but wouldn't mind reading the full text if anyone on this MB happens to have had access to it.
A brief summary will do just fine!
Greetings Whogo, hope all is well with you however, I doubt seriously that any form of a dilutive raise of capital is imminent especially at current stock levels in addition to the forward Q estimates painting a far from dire picture to even warrant considering it. JMHO
Salt, here's where we disagree. Yes, an in-house sales effort is more "controllable" in terms of your own sales force "prioritizing" what is in the company's best interest as opposed to say a multi, multi, product big pharma sales force hawking your product. However, Leo, as an example, is a partner that assumed risks to license out Otrexup and based on their size and speciality, it is a safe assumption that they will make every effort to sell the product for Antares as well as themselves.
IMO, a similar type partner (but a bit larger with RA expertise) would have been ideal. In fact "we don't know exactly what was turned down in terms of RA partnership possibilities". I'm basing most of the partnership premise on the ease of closing the Leo agreement so it is only logical that several potential RA partners would have made offers to reach an agreement and the balance NEVER to be a component of the short thesis.
Salt, add up the launch expenses from Leroux hiring to breakeven and then add an addition 10-20M "would have been" licensing fees and then consider O sales needed to recoup this cash then consider whether the conservative route might have been the better move.
I do agree with you that in the end, the in-house effort might, in a big way, pay big dividends for the risks the company has taken on, but IMO that proves only that opting for the road with more speed bumps and perils can potentially get you to where you want to go faster. It doesn't mean it was the prudent choice however.
activity still running white hot within the sector including the latest in the form of the "declining sales/restructuring" Auxl. I would describe the Endo rationale as "they are "at this moment' vulnerable and opportunistically receptive to a premium enhanced proposal" more so then if they were lighting it up with expanding sales Q/Q also combine the timing with a depressed stock price.
OT, but similarities permeate the drug space. Teva? Pfizer? Anyone?
PS, I still say that if PW partnered R/A and banked roughly a 20M upfront licensing fee, S.I. would have had to call it a day no lower than the old 52 wk low @3.35 "at worst" (maybe even near 4) no matter the rationale behind shorting the commercial viability of Otrexup along with the financial limitations behind the launch.
An above partnership would have situated Antares with about 90-100M in cash on hand combined with the pre-launch mini burn of about 1-2 cents per Q and that has a far more limiting short seller shelf life then the door opened up by PW.
It all may still work out for the best, but IMO the solo launch was/is unnecessary pain inflicted on ATRS shareholders as well as a too aggressive marketing strategy for a company better off building a solid partnered revenue stream "FIRST' to better fund a solo launch later on down the road.
Vulnerable is now where we find Antares.
Merger more likely JD. The combined entities might be valued at around 600M+ but at RTQ Siga shares will garner IMO "at least" 1/2 the total value of the combined companies "whatever the street happens to assign if or when it happens". Favorable conversion ratio for Siga shares for sure with the valuation gap between the 2 companies as it stands now.
Pip IMO may not feel it prudent to over play their hand beyond the friendly confines of the Parson sphere of influence primarily because an SC miscalculation (total $ ) is an outcome that MUST be avoided at the cost of compromise.
Mac Andrews & Forbes , I suspect have an inkling of the ultimate outcome, and I also suspect that RP isn't about to just sit by idle while the value of 14M shares slips down the drain needlessly.
An additional factor might be the looming 100M shelf registration Pip filed.
Interesting soap opera going on here.
Even the resident pessimist issued positive O comments specifically relating to significant in combo potential negating any NVS negatives In addition, NVS trials in the more difficult to treat heart failure sub group will be on going clear into 2019 and this segment is estimated to be on the order of another 5B annually.
Seems reasonable, although, just on Tirasemtiv SVC data "alone" with solid balance sheet the stock is worth $6 - $7 a share before FDA lays out a pathway to approval post meeting in the near future.
The stock is far too undervalued here at todays close sub 150MC and MLV is far too conservative on their PT assignment.
Under valued beyond even the obvious.
Sorry for typo!
Submission Issue Meeting is the corrected.
FWIW, my preference is getting the info post meeting vs managements anticipated view of FDA specifics.
As per the company PR, a scheduled meeting with the FDA for "clarification" is/was anticipated within "weeks" after the date of the public notification of 7/16.
Based on the above, it is logical to assume that Lundy will inform shareholders with the specifics of the FDA requests during the upcoming Q call and I agree with the current non-issuance of vague or incomplete info at this time by management prior to the actual FDA face to face.
If the expected minor omission quick fix becomes fact, the CC should be when it is confirmed.
Interesting question Brunoq.
Three points of consideration that immediately come to mind are
a) The Quintiles contract/agreement. Are early termination costs involved?
b) The cash resources "already" invested in the current sales/marketing effort. A write off of significance.
c) Much more difficult to get equal value for the asset if motivated to do so under duress as opposed to fielding offers from potential partners "prior" to the go it alone "commitment".
MHO answer is that Antares, at this point, is and has to remain committed to the Paul Wotton strategy and "make it work" Option "B" is no longer the "prudent" winner that it once was.
The above is not to imply that the O effort/commitment will not ultimately succeed, only that the consequences of failure (or just the mere potential of this) has grave consequences and is being "exploited" to the max by short interest which also IMO would NOT have been the case if ATRS banked RA partnership milestone millions and booked the modest revenue/profits totals onto their (what was) very, very low operating costs.
C'est la vie!
Revisiting the PW miscalculation is relevant because it illustrates clearly that he was virtually pushed out the door and that his departure is/was "not necessarily" a harbinger of doom for Antares, but an acknowledgement of a critical gaff that put the company under considerable pressure to make good on reaching profitability ASAP and then maintain and further grow, This is based on current sales trends that align closely to the FY'14 sales estimates posted/published by knowledgeable followers of the company and small bio at large. So the break even timeline still appears very much in tact and on schedule.
The key Qs center on Medac's impact from ATRS breakeven EOY and beyond. What will the Medac product pricing look like? Personally, I don't see a "scorched earth" strategy coming out of Medac. The reason being is because they seem to be telegraphing a confidence that the space is plenty large enough to support volume with lucrative margins for 2 players and I suspect that even Medac realizes that the shelf life for the two companies by themselves will not last till perpetuity.(3 years maybe?) So why endeavor to kill each other?
On the settlement front, the only outcome I expect is possibly an under the table agreement (pricing and good luck proving collusion) as both parties cease litigation.
ATRS not even close to dead yet!
Good for me!
Without question, it's viable. Building multi-product pipelines via the 5052b pathway within a low operating cost business structure WORKS and if or when the PPS falls to my buy point,,,,,,,,,I'll do just that!
The caveat is that the CEO has to push all the right buttons especially when a particular company isn't yet generating free cash Q/Q on a reliable basis. Hence the downfall of Paul Wotton. Cutting to the chase, if your going to opt on making a big cash commitment by independently selling/marketing your first product you MUST be 100% sure of the level of success of the given product. This includes being aware of "anything" in the market place that could surface and hurt you. Not being aware is NOT why a CEO is compensated as richly as they are!
Now a 20/20 hindsight hypothetical. If Antares received 10M in milestone payments along with a 50-50 revenue split agreement from Leo, what potentially would RA have garnered via a partnership? Double the Leo milestones seems conservatively reasonable IMO or 20M combined with a similar revenue sharing % breakdown. That would mean that ATRS would be NOW sitting with 100M+ on the balance sheet from the extra milestone cash and the "eliminated expenditures" now present but not needed if RA partnered. Last but not least is that less of a "total market pie" (Medac impact) would be much less of a big deal when considering the cost to get the product through the FDA to begin with.
What the above means is that PW should have stayed the conservative course and partnered RA. If that means "partnered potential" dollar wise falls to say 70M-75M annual "with" Medac in the space then SO WHAT! It cost ATRS roughly 15M-20M in total to get Otrexup to the market place. A fantastic ROI if 75M annual low risk end result.
With all that cash on hand, PW "would have" had the flexibility to open up the flood gates by running 2,3,4 new product trials "immediately and simultaneously".
See what I mean!
No chance AT ALL unless retail guesses just right with limit orders in close proximity to wash out bottoms.
The S.I. cartel didn't put out the "ok to buy now sign" you would expect from such a nice group of fellas!
Man,,,,,,,,,,,that was fast!
I'm not even going to ask because magically, everybody and their relatives bought tons sub 2.10! Yeah right!