Well not much:
U.S. patents: 3 issued; none pending; expirations ranging from 2018 to 2023
Can't see how the drug could be on the US market before 2020. Maybe they get the +5 yrs. But if only for 3-line, may noot be repeated if they try for 1 -line use.
Hmm, not sure why VSCi was worth 40% of combination... sure it had 40% of sales but 20% of the gross margin. Debt, no cash... and now they control the whole deal!
Sentiment ok, but latest SEC filing gives:
17,700,000 with an exercise price of $1.44
So, unless another bid, not much more than 1.44 per share in best case. Warrant holders will take some 40%+ of any extra over 1.44
Unless stock price gets to 1.44, some 23 m warrants are worthless. Warrants bring in some 35 m cash if all the 1.44s get to have any value at all. After 1.44 warrant holders start to get nearly 50% of any extra cash consideration paid. So there is an incentive from w-holders to keep down net costs while trying to get the sales. Even more incentive to get another bidder. at this 50 m cash bid, warrents are worths a few cents... but with a bid of some 100 m they seem to be worth nearly a dollar! Walk away fee is only 2 m
Some half a billion in "expenses" using the balance sheet... turned into "capital" of 58 m... Common shareholders getting only some 1 in 4 of the dollars being paid. Biofire example shows simliar 1/10 of possibiity... Lessons to learn!
Spnc and csii suffer from DCBs eating into their PAD revenues... or at least some of the growth. Over at Atricure, where Drake is on the board, we can see that fear of catheter aortic and then mitral valve replacement is eating at open heart procedure where the Atricure clips aetc are mostly used. In both cases stocks down 50%. At least spnc has a good plan B.
You need to figure shares+converted shares+options then warrant effect sp calc goes down...
Second go here: Idea here is to convert prefs into shares... that adds 4.3 m shares to the 19,3 outstanding. The options are 0.5 m or so it seems. So, way I read it is that the denominator is 24 m shares or options.
So business guidance equates to something like a 40 m buyout and maybe 1.6 dollars per share. But the pref shares had warrants and they total to 17.7 m at 1.44 so they put a tight collar on everything above that. So best guess is that 1.44... not to demanding for revenues
Anyone else figure this out like this or better?
This should be a 2x revs stock, not 1x. Good result despite some 5m missing from the service line. Assuming the have planned for the products to also nee services, this should mean catch-up. Generating cash on an annual basis, means some of thebalance could retire shares.
If the 36% leverage model holds up... a doubling of sales should then double valuation again...
So end user US ortho growth was 11%. Not bad, and since that's logically in usd, it's likely mkt share gain as well. Ex-us growth was 46%. Not said what ortho growth was. Guidance of mid-teens growth in ortho overall suggest that %-growth might continue. If it does, it translates to 2m more in sales .. or as much as 6c Q1 2017... assuming growth from better margin monovisc and some cingal. Leverage due to no direct sales, yet. and a tiny shr count of 15 m. So that effectively doubles what one might expect from US ortho alone.... another 6c.
Of course one has to subtract the cost of extra r&d, but if they do get this ex-US business going it is worth a lot more than just the noise it has been discounted to.
The renewed orthovisc agreement runs out in Nov 2017... so needs renegotiating end of THIS year. Anika would be mad not to use all the tricks to get a better price and terms: it's "our" brand" after all and they get it for a generic price. I'd say jnj get the lot at a higher price in 2017... However, Anika would use the profits to market its own other products - which would eat up the benefits?.At this rate cingal will not be on the market until 2018, if then - if another trial is demanded - so timing isn't as sweet as it seemed in 2015.... Plan B would be to take back all rights in 2017 ... sure they would lose sales and share for a while but the profits are staggering even on less sales. Plan B is high risk, but also puts the company in play - at the moment it can't be because of jnj.
I am more worried about the fda relationship than direct sales!
Well, someone got nervous, but the marketer jnj was upbeat for this quarter. More than sales, people wil want to hear how cingal is doing vv fda. Clealry no actual progrees as no pr yet....jnj:
"Orthopedic sales growth was driven by worldwide knees and hips and U.S. trauma and spine. Market growth and the success of product launches drove results for the U.S. orthopedics business. Pricing pressure continued across the major categories, partially offset by positive mix for trauma and spine products. The success of the TFNA nailing system in trauma, the ATTUNE platform in knees, our primary stem platform in hips, and ORTHOVISC/MONOVISC and new spine product introductions made important contributions to results.
They are spending 5m a quarter even before the trial starts.. expect rd to double when trial starts - so that is 30/ year for 2 years with 20 in cash now. Numbers do not add up. At minimum an interim look a year into the trial would attract. The drug method and indication all look fine, unfortunate situation.
So far -7%... or then back to where we were before so: plusminuszero. So far, data shows non-inferiority to in.pact, in real-world SFA. What we were not told is bail-out stenting rate, etc. Most important would be better function, is 84% better or even meaningful?! Less drug is safer, but needs a good end result, too in SFA. So far, all else has failed to improve on plain balloon in BTK, so if Stellarex has the right trade-offs there, then it's all worth it. At least the lead here PRof. Zeller is the most critical in the business, so i think we can trust the numbers, if not the spin. 2 days til chance to ask questions is a long time...
Showing fairly good results. This earlier data were from a very small group at 2 sites,so this result de-risks the program big-time. As to whether the dcb works better than in.pact... hard to say. The Medtronic trial results were from a "manipulated" trial and were not so great in the real world study. So what's new. Also,functional benefit was no better than plain PTA... but the latter requred reops. This release says 84% walked farther, but not by how much. The in.pact study showed that at least for their's the critical period was 13-15 m... during whic there was a step fall off in effectiveness. Hopefully, with no mention of MACE or mortality, safety not an issue. In the medtronic case mortality was overlooked in approval. Looks goo, but all the bad stuff happens in the next 12 m, if it happens!
Consider, though, the time gap from now to then.... itwillbe 4yrsbefore they are selling the new drugs in the pipeline. As for cash, that's why a merger is the best option. Synergies would be huge, if it works out.