Even the pessimistic estimates are about $500M/year so that is still $11+/share earnings @ P/E of 10 is $100/share.
We could play the game that some other guy was touting - worst case scenario - Dris gets 50% or more marketshare or whatever, and can dumb it down to whatever level he wants -- I think the stock goes over $100 on approval regardless of what Drisapersen does.
Again, I'm not doing it - all I did was paste in the contents of that comment. I did not write the article and I did not write the comment. I pasted in the contents of a comment.
I wonder if Dexter the prick would argue against a quote made by President Obama and try to tell me I was wrong for authoring what Obama said. Sheesh. Last time I pass on anything of interest on this board.
Dexter, want to try that again?
Scroll down to the next paragraph:
We are encouraged by the company’s progress with eteplirsen. Eteplirsen’s approval would be a huge boost for the company – it would be able to address about 13% of the total DMD population.
-- So if the total DMD population is 200K and Eteplirsen addresses 13% the math still works: 200,000 * 0.13 = 26,000.
Lastly, I had copy/pasted in from a COMMENT below the article. So, please take your condescending attitude to the Zacks article author or the comment. I was merely sharing what I came across as I was looking for a better board where there were less condescending pricks.
You can be even more conservative and go with a P/E of 1 and declare it is overpriced.
Show me any biopharamaceutical with a drug on the market that has a P/E of 5. Your estimate is so pessimistic it isn't realistic.
INCY P/E = 1,458
INSY P/E = 67
SCMP P/E = 44
PFE P/E = 23.62 (and that is for a $200B company)
AMGN P/E =20
ALXN P/E = 60
EBS P/E = 36
CELG P/E = 46
Not "my" guesstimate, it was pasted in from the Zacks article. Feel free to contact the author and tell him he is wrong.
Sacks just did an interesting article on SRPT (yesterday). There was an interesting comment that I'm pasting in:
This article accurately states that there are 200,000 DMD patients in the U.S. And Eteplirsen could be used in 13% of them, so a target patient population of 26,000. Even if Eteplirsen only captured 70% market share, at $400K/patient per year, that is still $7.28B/year. If they got the whole market, that is more than $10B/year. With 41.51M shares outstanding, that is more than $30/share and even with a P/E of 10, that pits shave valuations over $300/share.
P/E of $20 = $600/share
But if you are just trying to protect me from ignorance, and you are the ignorant one, then you are actually trying to protect me from yourself? Loop infinitum.
The bottom line for the past 2 years is that Eteplirsen does not work?
But it DOES work. Your note makes no sense.
If they can read the markets that well, I want an account with them!
Please substantiate your comment about what medical data was found based on many opinions/reviews. You said your wife looked things in up Journals/Reviews yet the only source that portrays the two drugs as remotely equal is the BMRN camp. So either you didn't do much research or you are a liar. I'll go with the former and just go with maybe you did a cursory check and didn't dig for any real meat. From there we can simply agree to disagree.
The whole ultophin modulator approach is very sketchy and the results from the phase-IIb trials will tell if Summit goes immediately to zero or if there is hope. With on,y $46M on hand that isn't even going to cover the ne t year of what they will need.
If your wife is a doctor she would see a massive difference in the results between Eteplirsen which showed significant efficacy as well as excellent safety, and Drisapersen which showed no statistical significance over placebo (so it didn't work at all, efficacy near zero) and a dangerous safety problem with liver toxicity.
I heard he decreased it by the same amount as he increased it in another hedge fund so a net zero to the rest of the world and that he did it to realize a gain to cancel out a loss in he one hedge fund.
Has the FDA ever done this? Approved anything early? They haven't even officially accepted the NDA yet.
Like a storm about to hit, I can feel the energy - it is going to be very good too!
So, your point is what? Please be specific:
1) The FDA will approve BOTH Eteplirsen and Drisapersen.
2) The FDA will only approve Eteplirsen.
3) The FDA will only approve Drisapersen.
4) The FDA will not approve either Eteplirsen or Drisapersen?
I don't understand your point. You quote, then say watch and learn. Please clarify. Are you saying SRPT might be approved and BMRN not, or both approved, or what?
I would have to think both will be approved and the market can sort it out (which would leave Eteplirsen the clear winner). Yet with the toxicity issues with Drisapersen, BMRN could very easily get a denial.