Agreed, looking forward to results from that study as well as 9 other studies underway - esp in endometriosis. For now, seems like we are stuck in a period of consolidating gains of last few mos, digesting the after effects of recent equity sold at $16.75, and straddling the 50-day MA - w/ no correlation with broad mkt or convincing volumes. But here's to a strong '14 and hopefully some color on taking back the other 50% of the Lifecell JV - which expires in 18 mos.
So, are you suggesting we don't know if the co's tissue sampling contains a bias in it? Sounds like you are arguing that if the tissue sampling itself was not randomized, and proved as such, the FDA will not accept it? Is the fact that irinotecan has been used for yrs and yrs not a factor in worrying somewhat less about the cardiotox issue you raise re: Iclusig? It is not exactly an unknown agent - just as paclitaxel was not. I am not wearing rose-colored glasses here, merely trying to handicap odds like everyone else - fully aware how unpredictable this area can be, however, the sample collection issue should be something the co could/should disclose if asked.
Think you already know the answer to this question. Abraxane posted +1.8 mos of PFS improvement over control - in a 1L trial in PC (less sick) - AND this was in combination with Gemzar. Abraxane is considered a 'shoe-in' for approval and to be standard of care in front line treatment for PC now. So for 398 anything that's +1.5 mos in monotherapy and +3.0 mos in combo - or better - in a sicker population....well....you can do the math. None of that is to say there isn't still risk.
Claiming that this administration's "policies" (Obamacare, regulatory overreach/fines, publicly vilifying the private sector, advocating wealth redistribution instead of growth overall, and now a 2.5% tax on NVDQ's device sales) have led to the recovery is like the rooster who cockadoodles in the morning and then takes credit for making the sun rise. Yes, the debt problem is b/c of the GOP protecting tax cheats! So simple. If you don't like political stuff creeping in, than don't perpetuate it with a political rant.
If we are talking about the next 18 mos, yes, seems silly. On a much long-term basis - 5-7+ yrs from now, no, $100, or a $15B+ valuation is not 'silly' I agree, when you consider that MM-121 could be a Herceptin-like product and 398 could be the beginning of a nano-liposomal delivery platform similar to Abraxane. Then there's MM-111, MM-151, MM-302 etc. For now, I will welcome $10+. :-) But yes, ONXX comparison is fair, as is heck, CLVS - a $1.6B mkt cap co just on P-1/2 results for a NSCLC drug.
Agreed. This talk of $100+ is silly. That said, if the MM-398 trial reads out in April/May as +2.0 mos progression free survival (PFS) vs the control arm - it will be double digits ($10+) before you can sneeze. Why? Go back and look at CELG's purchase of Abraxis Bio for $2.9B 2 yrs ago - at that time Abraxane was approved for metastatic breast cancer only. CELG added $5B in mkt cap when Abraxane showed +1.8 mos in 1st line pancreatic in Jan 2013. This is 2nd line (sicker patients), if it works, the assumption will be it can work in 1st line setting as well. Risk? Yes, but its an easy leap to double digits if they have an approvable product for PC.
Not much to add here other than to agree that Arun obviously has his sights set on something - either complimentary surgical imaging technology or IP/patents that perhaps run into the tens of millions or more. Funding a faster marketing launch - say 150 salespeople by YE 14, that does not require $185m. Also, the randomized clinical studies do not cost this much - and in many cases they don;t have to sponsor all of it. Perhaps they enter an intl JV where they want to retain a much larger slice of the economics, than what a small co would typically get as a margin dealing w/ Olympus, GE, Siemens, etc. It is frustrating - ISRG is a $400 stock 10yrs later partly b/c they never breached 40m shares. At some point NVDQ will grow only 13% y/y, we just negated that future yr with dilution. But I nitpick..
Anders, that is nice rsch work at the hospital level. Wondering: have you attempted to do the same for LUNA - i.e. reaching out to wound care centers to get early reads on LUNA acceptance/interest/orders. My understanding is that a few wound care roll-ups control a huge chunk of this mkt nationally - with Healogics being among the largest. Still early days here...
Looks like a 25k share trade that was in erroneous and then cancelled. See below
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nvdq/after-hours#ixzz2aZLiLlXI
Hoping this isnt an issue. If they can ship/install 4,000+ devices by '19 (900 already in now) - and you assume each device doubles in usage vs today's run rate (55x a yr now up to say 115 uses per yr in '19) that = 460k+ procedures a yr their installed base gets used @ $475 per consummable = quickly get to $250m or so in recurring revenue at 85% GM%. Assume G&A/R&D costs are nearly covered by OEM sales and svc/maintenance contract revenues = on 50m shares, you'd quickly be at $2.50 in EPS 5-6 yrs from now. Assume a 25x P/E and discount back by 5-6 yrs at say 10% discount rate - see what you get. If you believe that scenario or anything close to it - a sale today that doesnt come close to $30+ is only to the detriment of longer run upside.
Agreed. People seem to treat MM-398 as an afterthought, but should they? Abraxis - another nano-delivered chemo tech was bought for $2.5B+ by Celgene with approval in 1-2 cancer indications. Abraxane just showed 1.8 mos survival improvement in 1st line pancreatic cancer and will be approved on the basis of clearing that low bar. If 398 shows improvement of 1.5-2.0 mos in a sicker, heavily pre-treated 2nd line pancreatic population, there's a case that can be made that they should go head-to-head against Abraxane in the 1st line indication in another study. If they can get proof of concept on this chemo delivery platform, it would be a big deal.