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

Genomic Health Inc. Message Board

afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine 106 posts  |  Last Activity: 13 hours ago Member since: Mar 28, 2006
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine by afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Apr 29, 2016 5:49 PM Flag

    So why does Sanofi think MDVN is worth $10 billion (and MDVN wants, perhaps, twice that)?

    Musings on what they have going for them:

    Primarily Xtandi, an androgen receptor (AR) blocker as well as an AR signalling inhibitor. It is replacing J&J's Zytiga as the best chemo for castration resistant prostate cancer. It is currently the best at what it does and has global sales approaching $2 billion annually. The drug might be able to move into certain kinds of breast cancer and top estimates have global sales peaking at $5 billion.

    But MDVN shares the U.S. sales with Astellas and Astellas also keeps most of the ex-NA sales. So, total Xtandi sales in 2015 = $1.9 billion of which about $700 million went to MDVN. Then MDVN got another $250 million last year for one-time milestone payments.

    2015 revenue = $950 million (earnings about half that) and Xtandi is growing fast. Can it reach $5-6 billion world-wide? (maybe 2.5 annually for MDVN)??? Some pressures: they are taking a lot of heat right now for the drug cost - about $125,000 per patient annually for this drug that is given pretty much until death. Zytiga is about 15% cheaper and J&J has just bought another drug in development they hope will replace both. There are two other drugs in trials hot on their heels. So, getting to 2.5 billion in sales is definitely not a sure thing.

    What else does MDVN have going for it? A ph2 cancer drug with est peak sales of $200 million and another in ph1 development that adds almost nothing to the company's worth...

    OTOH, NVAX is possibly a year away from approval of an RSV vaccine that the company says, eventually, could see annual sales of $ 6-8 billion. There is no political pressure with cost effective vaccines. Discount how you want for the trial risk, manufacturing risk, partnership percent of sales, and eventual competition. Add in the value of the flu franchise plus other vaccines. In a few years:

    RSV MDVN's share of Xtandi
    flu vax rest of MDVN pipe

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Apr 21, 2016 12:46 AM Flag

    clarkjohn18 - I do speak from experience. I've been investing in biotech for 30 years and have had my shares taken from me in a buyout many times. Forgive me for not linking you to SEC docs as they can be rather hard to find years after the company is no longer but if I had the time I'd show you just how often the senior management and the directors enrich themselves with options in the year before take-out. Almost every time. And the message boards are filled with the outrage of retail shareholders who accuse management of stealing from them. sigh.

    I WANT the management of my companies to have lots of options. I want Stan to be filthy rich. I want him to be able to attract the best team to make NVAX a force to be reckoned with. That takes options. In another post this evening you worry that they are getting their options now, before the company sinks. Think about that. If the company sinks, their options are under water. They only make out if the share price goes up.

    I encourage you to stop thinking small. Stan has told BP to take a hike, has grown the war chest, and surrounded himself with industry stars. He needs to pay them, if they do their job, you and I will make out like bandits. And all we've got to do is.... NOTHING! That's right, they do all the work.

    I am invested here because I believe there is a very good chance Novavax will be selling billions of dollars worth of vaccines over the next several years. The share price is likely to triple this year and then triple again the following year - if not taken out. (and then when taken out the same complainers will grouse it was got too little - watch, I've seen it happen every time). Yet people complain about a 2% dilution? Worried about their investment? Or is it envy?

    I'm a simple shareholder and I'm likely to make more off any buyout than any but the most senior in management. Yeah, my money is at risk. Their livelihood is at risk. Build the best company you can, Stan.

  • Reply to

    As I see it

    by novaxetogrind May 13, 2016 2:03 PM
    afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine May 13, 2016 2:35 PM Flag

    You see it clearly, navaxetogrind. As does stockflippermike and many others. Unfortunately, the dedicated shorts sow confusion and and it is difficult to have the same discussion over and over to make up for that confusion.

    What is often misleading in these discussions is the idea that there was a viable alternative to the convert deal such as another SPO. In retrospect it seems clear that the moment Stan made it clear NVAX was staying independent, at least through the next stage of development, the share price was under pressure. This coincided with the worst six month period for biotech ever. If there was ever an opportunity to raise another $200-300 million in that time frame, I can guarantee it was for less than what we are selling for today.

    The convertibles are almost certainly hedged with short sales. There are a few postings that show the math to calculate returns of about 30%. Pretty nice! And those convertibles also provide cover for the kind of games that are playing out right now. The company even warned about this, in so many words, in the SEC filing announcing the terms of the deal! (how these games are played is the topic of much discussion on these mbs and, IMO, are so much more complex than most can imagine, it isn't worth speculating what goes on in the dark corners of the shadow banking world) The calls the company bought are part of the games and make for some fun and interesting possibilities. Again, it would be tedious to discuss what these games might be but surely you can see how these instruments can embolden professionals to short and cover and accumulate in cycles that wear out retail.

    Assuming good news this year, and all the actions of Stan depend on this assumption, the cost of this money to the company, in the long run, will be much less with these deals. The share price will go up and the effective cost to the company will be as though they did an SPO selling shares at over $9 per. Not bad.

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Apr 29, 2016 6:09 PM Flag

    YMB screwed up the last paragraph. I was running out of characters so let me write here a little cleaner:

    I believe MDVN will likely plateau with sales around 2.5 billion in a few years. Then pricing pressures and the competition will eat away at that. The next drug up is a ways off and not the same kind of money maker. As lobster has alluded to in the past, BP likes to pay for approved drugs, so the $10-15 billion valuation on MDVN is really just the worth of their share of Ztandi.

    NSV elderly sales could outpace MDVN's Ztandi sales in five or six years. What would an independent MDVN be worth in 2022? An independent NVAX in 2022? Discount backward to now. If you believe the trial results will be good, NVAX is a steal.

  • Reply to

    Dr. Glenn's confidence....

    by cmarriott11 Apr 18, 2016 1:42 PM
    afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Apr 18, 2016 3:00 PM Flag

    Wily, why would you even joke about this? You do understand that this trial is blinded on many levels? It's not like there exists someone who is blinded only to who was vaccinated, or not, but can see there are subjects who have good titers that did not get sick. Until unblinding, no one will know if or how vaccination status, titers status, side effect status, or symptoms status relate to the other variables in any way.

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Apr 16, 2016 10:59 AM Flag

    wily - I believe you understand the science just fine - even if your words are imprecise. I understand you. But just to be clear - while some investigators in the lab may be able to see there is an antibody / PCA response in some subjects, if the study is blinded properly it will mean that no one can guess the percentage of responders, nor whether those vaccinated, responder or not, have less disease than others, until the data is unblinded.

    I've explained before, perhaps on this board, how certain trials are very difficult to blind and investigators can easily make guesses at results. At least until someone starts working with the data, RESOLVE's primary endpoint should be opaque.

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Mar 31, 2016 11:33 PM Flag

    OH, OH, you almost forgot... you will not post again... But you did....

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Mar 29, 2016 2:59 PM Flag


    I wouldn't think Dr Fries would use the Corporate Presentation at a scientific meeting. It is clearly aimed at investors. But I am looking forward to news coming out of the meeting over the next few days.


  • Reply to

    Insider Trade?

    by lancesway Jun 1, 2016 2:58 PM
    afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Jun 1, 2016 3:10 PM Flag

    - less than 5%

    After his sale, not only does he own 4,000 shares indirectly each for Casey and Dustin Evans (presumably family), he now still owns 340,977 shares directly and on 12/31/15, per the Annual Report, had options for another 305,000 shares. Last year, in June '15, Mr, Evans was awarded 40,000 of those options at the ASM (exercise price $8.94), I would expect another similar award for him next week.

    How much is enough?

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine by afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine May 10, 2016 10:38 AM Flag

    A reminder. It is 182 day trial. They began enrollment Nov 5, 2015 and completed enrollment remarkably "in just five weeks." The PR announcing completion of enrollment was dated Dec 14, 2015.

    So, the trial will still be following subjects until the middle of June. I'm looking for top line results in Sept and some kind of rise in anticipation to start the end of July.

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Jun 2, 2016 6:36 PM Flag

    - don't think so -
    I feel pretty good right now. I like backing winners.
    This is a winner move.
    And my Warriors are about to play the Cavs :-)

  • Reply to

    Novavax 2015 Annual Report....

    by birdyvax May 14, 2016 4:14 PM
    afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine May 15, 2016 1:06 PM Flag

    You may be right, birdy but, as you know, that sort of precautionary language is standard in ARs. In the first place, Novavax has to negotiate with the attitude that marketing is not a substantial issue. In the second place, in fact, a vaccine covered by Medicare and recommended by the ACIP will almost sell itself. I would not give away too much for access to someone else's sales-force.

    Three wholesalers account for 85% of the distribution and sales of all prescriptions in the U.S.: McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen. I'm sure they've had numerous discussions with at least Cardinal Health about the roll-out of RSV in the elderly. They don't need to give away the company to sell the product. I am one who is hoping they stay independent long enough at least to see $1 billion in sales. The undiluted path to there looks fairly open to me.

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine by afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine May 14, 2016 12:34 AM Flag

    Controlled Release - Liposomal and Inhalation Delivery Technologies Global Market Analysis, Size, Growth, Share, Trends and Forecast 2012 - 2018
    5/12/2016 - NVAX busy in many areas.

    Search: Controlled-Release-Liposomal-and-Inhalation-Delivery-Technologies-Global-Market-Analysis-Size-Growth-Share-Trends-and-Forecast-2012-2018

    A few paragraphs with Novavax mentioned:

    The controlled release liposomal delivery technology market is segmented into Novasome lipid vesicles and micellar nanoparticles by Novavax Inc, proliposomes by ADD Drug Delivery Technologies, stealth liposomes by Sequus Pharmaceuticals and others. The inhalation drug delivery technologies are broadly classified into dry powder inhalation, nebulizers, and metered dose inhalation technologies.

    North America being the most economically developed economy, dominated the market in terms of market share in 2011. Emerging economies such as China and India make Asia the fastest growing region.
    Some of the major market participants include Sequux Pharmaceuticals, Novavax Inc, ADD Technologies, QLT, Bend Research, and BIND Biosciences.

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine May 30, 2016 11:02 AM Flag

    Thanks framus. Do they explain how they get to $1.2 billion peak sales? Is that their estimate of the entire RSV elderly market or do they anticipate competition and $1.2 billion is the NVAX share? Do they give an estimate of reimbursement per jab? Do they assume ACIP recommendation? Like previous notes from P-J, some of their statements don't add up. IOW, $1.2 billion peak sales seems absurdly low.

  • Reply to

    Influenza Update from Capetown....

    by sidlevin May 26, 2016 5:02 PM
    afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine May 26, 2016 6:36 PM Flag

    I am also surprised there has been no PR. Stan still has a few days left to keep his promise of an update. I'd be more surprised if he blew this off. Didn't his words emphasize by the end of the month? Perhaps Friday after market close?

    That said, it seems to me they have laid out the flu-vax plan already and are changing course. We are a few years away from a new NP vaccine. While I am curious about the science and business plan, as an investor I don't think the flu update will have much effect on SP. It's all about RSV now.

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine by afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Jun 4, 2016 4:53 PM Flag

    Is there something about the NP technology that allows for the use of these "universal" antigens that the VLP technology lacks? I think MuddyC speculated that perhaps the lipid bi-layer in the VLP got in the way of full antigen exposure. Perhaps. But from what is presented, I don't see any explanation why the reverse engineering of antigens that are "broadly neutralizing" by the methodology they describe wouldn't fit in with VLP.

    It seems there are two technological departures from the old NVAX flu vaccine whose link is not clearly explained (at least to me). The use of NPs instead of VLPs has advantages in yield, flexibility, fit with RSV and lack of royalties, as outlined by muddy, lobster, biopro and Dr Fries. That is clear. But how, exactly does NP technology advance the goal of a more universal flu vaccine? (and, correlated, what technology does NVAX own, IPwise, or do better than all others, so that their competitive moat is wide?)

    -Perhaps the NPs allow for better antigen presentation and thus better immunogenicity.
    -Perhaps the NPs allow for multiple antigens on a single particle. I assume each VLP would only contain one antigen and a pentavalent vaccine would simply be a mix of four flu VLPs and one RSV NP. Do they not formulate well together? Storage issues?
    -Could NPs be made with many more than four antigens? Could NVAX come out with a vaccine that uses more than one antigen for each HA subtype? Is there an advantage here?
    -Does NVAX suggest they might develop a flu vaccine (or combo) that would not require re-engineering every year? Or does the process they outline on slide 17 have to be repeated annually? Or would it simply be easier to mix and match antigens that they already had on file at the beginning of every season?
    -How does the GE technology fit into the new NP technology? Are their business reasons here also for the switch from VLP tech?

    I think answers to some of the above would help marathonman and others believe in manag

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Apr 19, 2016 7:51 PM Flag

    brian - perhaps you should explain all that to the Guggenheim analyst. I'm afraid you don't know enough to grasp how much you don't know. There are a handful of posters here who represent much more knowledge, experience, and investment dollars than you imagine. Pay attention. There are clues. The share price of Lobster's company, I.D. Biomedical, multiplied six or seven times in the year before buyout. That year saw some wild financing and tricky dealings between IDB, the Canadian gov, and BP. He had a front seat view the entire way. (I was a happy shareholder.) I think he understands corporate finance just fine. nitwitiy? :-)

  • afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Apr 19, 2016 6:56 PM Flag

    captain s -

    You have no clue what kind of company you are bashing. You don't understand the science. You don't understand the business model. You lost credibility some time ago. You're just making a fool of yourself now.

    You promised to stop posting. It's time to honor that promise.

  • Reply to

    Shareholders' Meeting Synopsis

    by cosaman Jun 9, 2016 8:46 PM
    afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Jun 9, 2016 9:03 PM Flag

    Your reporting is very much appreciated.

  • Reply to

    Timeline of

    by a_day_in_the_life_67 Apr 3, 2016 4:23 PM
    afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine afriendofthedevilsafriendofmine Apr 3, 2016 5:47 PM Flag

    a day in the life -

    Your price to sales ratio of 3 is off. Biotech is usually in the 5-15 range. A smaller company growing fast will be at the upper range.

25.00Jun 27 4:00 PMEDT