$47 is probably a reach, but what I do know if we can assume 12m diluted shares and saving $2.8m in interest and amt is about $0.24 a share pre-tax. Thats relatively significant number on this earnings base. I don't really care about the promotion, if they can get the balance sheet cleaned up like they are doing its a decent underfollowed story.
Quarterly numbers were $127 million vs $121 million consensus for US. Ex-US was $37M vs $21m consensus. MDVN never acknowledges the numbers posted by Astellas. Its fine though. Probably one of the best ideas in Biotech from this level.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The CT was filed so they wouldn't have to disclose their purchase commitment for a drug ingredient and how much they are paying for it. Please refer to the exhibit in the 10Q specified in the CT. The agreement is between them and Mallinkrodt and I'm sure mallinkrodt doesn't want other competitors to know what the purchase price is either. The agreement runs through 2016. Please stop you sound silly.
Why would you sell the stock if its trading at a discount to the NAV. You are aware that FB has doubled from the June 30 NAV and they were carrying TWTR at a 10B valuation. If I'm not mistaken are both of those not doubles doubles? NAV was 12.87 at June 30. Now there is clearly gives and takes in the rest of the portfolio, but think about it, more than 20% of the portfolio has now doubled, and the stock closed at 13.44. Why do you think they postponed the earnings call? Clearly they will try to communicate the NAV based on where TWTR has closed. I will not sell stock, and I will probably buy more if it does go to 10. This is nothing more than sell the news, don't get shaken out!
you could have stopped reading after he called it DHA....clearly the rest was going to be more rubbish.
No horse in this race, but I'm always drawn to names that are blown up to see if its warranted. I have gone through the FDA document to try to understand all the fuss. It appears to me that part of the issue with the reaction is the hypothesis of the FDA reviewer that the results are "overstated" because of the use of the mineral oil in the placebo arm. So if we start there, what the FDA reviewer is saying is that the mineral oil some how inhibits the uptake of the statin. So I've done of search of all the literature on Simvastatin (most used statin in the trial) and I have found NOTHING in the medical literature or databases that states there is any interaction between the statin and mineral oil. There is also nothing in the label of any of the statins warning that mineral oil intake inhibits the uptake of the statin. So I find it very curious that the reviewer can make this statement when there is no evidence of any interaction between the two. So the question is, why would the reviewer come to this conclusion that the benefits are "overstated" because of the mineral oil and statin in the placebo arm if there is no evidence that mineral oil has any interaction with the statin drug class? I don't get that one bit. Hopefully, the docs on the panel address this, because as is, the data is pretty impressive.
How do you know they were referring to the entire study? Are you clear...I'm not long this thing nor short. But just watching the headlines, its clear that a lot of the statements have been taken out of context from a 115 page document. An yes, we are referring to the same paragraph.
that was the 2mg dose....nobody, not even the subscription services read anything. Its the 4mg dose that matters.
I like the math. Did you take into consideration the convertible shares on an if issued basis. I thinks important. The dilution will cause NAV to be a bit less is my guess.
This is what I tend to find compelling about this drug and yes I'm a long. Typically in medicine what researchers believe should work in theory, seldom works in practice. Thats the real frustration in medical research. But so far with this compound, what the researchers have shown in theory "could" be playing out in practice. Thats why I'm pretty bullish. Could that be the reason why this data is being highlighted at two very important medical meetings on two continents? This is a very novel approach to treating Heart Failure and if this works it will definitely be one of the most important advancements in heart failure treatment in a REALLY long time. But knowing that this trial isn't powered to reach a specific endpoint, I'm really curious to see the results based on dosage and the safety. If those things are clean, AMGN moves forward.
I venture to guess this weakness is more attributable to this Minyanville article. Inaccuracies, goes as far as say SRPT will need to run a PH3 trial. Its amazing how intellectually dishonest the commentary around this stock has become. But I guess thats the game with this one now.
Just a heads up, MNKD market cap on a fully diluted basis is closer to $3B. Folks are not considering the warrants. I could be mistaken but including the warrants, the sharecount is something like 450m shares. You do the math on that, it may explain why the stock is fallen. The company is too expensive with results that still look questionable.
With margins depressed, in my opinion P/E is not the right measure for the stock currently. I think you should use a next 12 months revenue to enterprise value multiple. If you take the revenue they did this quarter and simply annualize it, you come roughly to $130m. Enterprise value is roughly $178m right now so you looking at a stock 1.36x rev/ev. Stock is cheap as dirt. My guess stock will probably trade 2.5 to 3X over time and thats far from being real expensive because they are cash flow positive. JMHO...stock has a lot of runway
Not a bash post. But its really not about the trial size. The key question is whether dystrophin will be accepted as a surrogate marker. We all have to remember that this is a novel approach and until that issue is born out the questions will remain. After all the ink that was spilled on this stock yesterday, I actually thought the blog posted by the Jett Foundation (Regulatory Update) explained it best. Ms. McSherry said that in a recent conversation with Dr. Woodcock, she informed them that the FDA wasn't opposed to considering dystrophin as a surrogate marker, they needed a way to quantify it. Circuling back to the conference call yesterday, cutting through all the ATM talk and the other nonessential BS, that was the real crux of the problem. The trial size doesn't change that one issue. Unless Dr. Woodcock is stringing the advocates along, to me this seems reasonable. Its really up to the company and the FDA to come to way to quantify it, and then SRPT will submit. Just my view. But I thought I would alert those investors (if you are a trader, no need to own the stock for now) of the post over at Jett and let those judge for themselves. I thought it was more informational then the call yesterday. No position in stock currently.
You are correct. There was always going to be a "confirmatory" P3 trial...I just can't believe how emotional people are about this stock!
That note should be ignored. Understand how this game works. This is the highest short interest in the market. What happens is the shorts call up all the analysts and put this things in their ear. Take it from one that knows. This happens all the time. After those guidelines came out, every short on the street called up the analysts to influence them to put out a note. My father told me long ago, "Hard to fight a battle in ink when your opponent buys it buy the barrel". That note should be literally ignored.
Whats really interesting is the main thing that all the analysts were concerned about with VOYA (low interest rates affecting the annuity business) has totally reversed since they all came out with the initiations. When this business start showing upside surprises because all the models incorporating lower interest rates, it will be bought up again. Additionally, investors need to realize its more an asset management business. Some firm upgraded that group this morning. Just be patient. This is a silly valuation in my opinion.