agree with luckijack on 4.80ish support.
I wouldn't want to be a short today without owning the convertible. OTOH, I don't think longs can count on any meaningful news today either. Either way, I guess I'm an "egg sitter" like Horton until the fall :-)
Operating losses increased from 14.4 in Q1 2015 to 15.3 million in Q1 2016. The net losses you cite were impacted favorably last year by over $6 million due to pricing the warrants differently. IOW, the increase in real losses from last year to this were less than $1million.
nothing new on CC. Still waiting for sales to ramp. It will happen. Not much discussion of RBCs
No doubt you are correct. My comment "not in this decade" was referring to the time to commercialization.
If you don't like being called illiterate, perhaps you could refrain from calling something you don't understand mumbojumbo? Perhaps the posts you were referring to were not written for you.
To me, this paper is "cool." (Thank you trip for the heads up.) It isn't about a product that is anywhere near commercially viable but that doesn't matter. It reflects very well on Novavax scientists that this tiny cutting edge company using genetically modified cows to make antibodies is using NVAX products. When a vaccine is unavailable for a particular disease and someone becomes sick, or is simply exposed with a high level of worry, antibodies can be given to help fight the infection. It's been done for decades in diseases such as hepatitis. Harvesting these antibodies is challenging and having cows make them is a cool idea.
Moreover, the fact that two NVAX vaccines, not yet approved by the FDA, have been chosen for their ability to create a robust immune response, is some level of validation for these products. It is pertinent.
Will these polyclonal abs make NVAX a penny? Not in this decade. No one ever said it would. But if your frustration over the share price causes you to criticize even a mention of a publication using a NVAX product, this message board isn't for you. The headline section of Yahoo will tell you what you want to know.
Using the NVAX ebola vaccine to stimulate polyclonal abs. Cited in the paper:
Rapid Manufacture and Release of a GMP Batch of Zaire Ebolavirus Glycoprotein Vaccine Made Using Recombinant Baculovirus-Sf9 Insect Cell Culture Technology
by Timothy J. Hahn, PhD et al.
Volume 14, Issue 1 (Spring 2015)
(same co as before with NVAX vaccine - the Hahn reference)
Polyclonal antibodies, derived from humans or hyperimmunized animals, have been used prophylactically or therapeutically as countermeasures for a variety of infectious diseases. SAB Biotherapeutics has successfully developed a transchromosomic (Tc) bovine platform technology that can produce fully human immunoglobulins rapidly, and in substantial quantities, against a variety of disease targets. In this study, two Tc bovines expressing high levels of fully human IgG were hyperimmunized with a recombinant glycoprotein (GP) vaccine consisting of the 2014 Ebola virus (EBOV) Makona isolate. Serum collected from these hyperimmunized Tc bovines contained high titers of human IgG against EBOV GP as determined by GP specific ELISA, surface plasmon resonance (SPR), and virus neutralization assays. Fully human polyclonal antibodies against EBOV were purified and evaluated in a mouse challenge model using mouse adapted Ebola virus (maEBOV). Intraperitoneal administration of the purified anti-EBOV IgG (100 mg/kg) to BALB/c mice one day after lethal challenge with maEBOV resulted in 90% protection; whereas 100% of the control animals succumbed. The results show that hyperimmunization of Tc bovines with EBOV GP can elicit protective and potent neutralizing fully human IgG antibodies rapidly and in commercially viable quantities.
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.
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
The question is really, should 't we not all short following the next catalyst, especially if we see unravelling of the convert past 6.83, further propelled by the unravelling of the anti-dilutive derivatives at $9.73 and...and...you get my point.
This will happen. My question or rather point is that...we all be better carefull sitting atop of that mountain, knowing how they play the game at the expense of many "unknowing" shareholders"
While acknowledging (with you) the games the big boys are playing with this stock, I disagree that Stan and co. are in bed with the devil. They needed to deal with the banks so as to better negotiate with big pharma. The banks are the devil they know. When they have that ex-NA partnership, they will not need any further financing, and we will not have to worry about this happening again.
Some posters here will have you believe management is crooked and is it is in their nature to continually dilute and allow "hedging" games at the expense of retail. I think that is entirely too cynical a view. All that has happened with the financing is consistent with management's stated goals and, now, holding long through these machinations is the only sensible way forward. As muddyc asked today, "Are these moves accretive?"
If you are betting the RSV trials will go well, then a retail investor has only to hold on for another year or two to be rewarded. Envy of management, the BOD or the financiers will only lead down a crooked road. Smart retail will buy and hold good companies. In my judgement, there are few as good as Novavax.
And where else can you get cost estimates like lobster is providing us? We are a truly fortunate ymb. Thanks.
if you read back some discussion between luckijack, muddyc, rkane, montecristo and myself (I think those were the main contributors) there are some good discussions of possibilities. I'd guess the calls are mostly covered and with an arrangement with those doing the shorting of the convertibles. A complex web, but I agree with muddyc that, except for short term games, it is all already baked into the long term equation.
thanks muddyc for writing clearly, per usual:
"In the simplest case the shares have already been sold (see short interest) and conversion simply covers the short, retail shareholders are always affected by dilution (as are all shareholders or record prior to the dilution event). Obviously a lot more is likely going on, but much of the supply of those shares has already entered the market and had its impact as a consequence of the shorting against those shares. Shorting is the sale of those shares, just doing so early (while continuing to enjoy the coupon, at an effective rate in double digits)."
I appreciate your willingness to keep reminding the board of the basics. Without posts like these, the trolls too easily sew confusion.
muddyc - you think clearly but I'd like to propose a different scenario.. I have no crystal ball but this is how I see it.
The need for cash should be less than $300 million over the next 12 mos. The ph3 elderly goosed the quarterly numbers and burn should settle down for a few quarters.
The ex-NA deal should put enough in $$$ in the coffers to get elderly to market. How about $25 million up front, $50 million with good ph3 results, and another $100 million with approval? I believe that gets RSV elderly to market and avoids much further dilution. Should NVAX get taken out in the year between approval and the start of sales, I think your $10 billion is a minimum.
I hope the convertible deal has some mechanism for making some of those shares available to the partner. But I concede it is possible the partnership will come with another dilution in the form of an equity position for the partner. Should the partner want shares with the deal, they should be prepared to pay a premium. (though still a deal from these discounted prices) So, perhaps, in addition to the $25 million up front payment, the partner buys 10 million shares at $7.50. (I'd rather NVAX didn't but an equity stake is often sold with large pharma partnerships) That puts another $75 million into the coffers and dilutes us about 3.3%
So, with a reasonable ex-NA partnership as above, perhaps announced a week before the ASM, we could be looking at new SP support above 7.50 with an additional $100 million in the bank and another $150 million expected over the next 12 months. With such a partnership, if somebody wants to try to take out this flush company before the ph3 results, it will have to be very close to $5 billion. After good results, 8 billion?. After approval, 10 (SP=34) When the revenues start rolling in and RSV maternal, pediatric and the flu vaccines get further down the road, NVAX gets closer to a $20-25 billion company. I think it is a reasonable estimate four to five years out.
Ha. That last one, Birdy. Unlikely, but that's where my mind went. Hawaii is six hours off from Maryland. :-)
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.
Complainers about stock options, get a grip. This is how it works. If you don't think it is fair, get yourself elected to a board or work your way into senior management and collect a few options for yourself. Or just sit back and do nothing for a year and watch your money triple (at least ).
Listen, if you aren't long this stock, or fortunate enough to be playing with hedged convertibles, you are over your head
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? :-)
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.
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.