might still be above $3 but just barely. they will surely try to keep it down, but will still profit on the premium they received when they sold the calls in the first place...if it doesnt trade too far north of the being in the money.
just ignore that dbag. he never has ANYTHING useful to say. he is the Geron Message Board troll..hanging out under bridges -- or other people's posts -- playing with his own feces. seriously. put. him. on. ignore.
did you ever get your answer? net sales is top line. nothing other than discounts and returns subtracted from the amount. its a much, much bigger number than net profits, which are profits minus all expenses -- manufacture, shipping, storage, advertising, labor...everything. only time will tell which is the bigger number, could end up being about the same...or Geron could come out far ahead. If the drug isnt profitable for the first year or so due to economies of scale (or lack thereof) Geron still makes money on the net revenue of sales.
perhaps...and perhaps for the next few days, as the shorts try to get out, the price won't move as expected, but in the long run, it will climb steeply, as was the case with pcyc.
I think if they cured cancer, they probably wouldn't want to change their name. All it takes is one monumental success and all is forgotten and forgiven. The only way they change their name is if they fail...and why would JNJ want to spin off a failure into a company? Who would buy it?
figured there had to be a missing symbol or word there. from what i googled, revenues include costs but profits dont. so GERN would be getting a percentage before costs are netted out. so if revenues of Imet come in at 3 billion, take out marketing, manufacture, etc., and profit might be 2.5 billion. id imagine, though, that over time, costs would come down and that would favor johnson.
also, I don't get why if GERN pays 50% for development going forward (ignoring the past 20 years of costs) why only 20% of profits? or is it revenues? what's the difference? net?
the difference being between revenue, which includes costs and profits, which is after costs (net)?
So, as of today, GERN has about 2 times the amount of outstanding shares out as PCYC. Do you think it is reasonable to assume, then, that GERN would reach half the highs (around $150) that PCYC did in those three years? If so, then that's around $75 a share at some point, if all the trials are positive and there aren't any insurmountable hurdles to overcome (production problems, FDA holds, etc). Or is my non-math-mind wrong here?
Right...well...I did google it myself and present day, GERN has about 2.1X the amount of outstanding shares PCYC has. I don't know whether they had less outstanding three years ago, but it makes sense they wouldnt have diluted once they inked the deal with J&J AND their pps started to appreciate rapidly. That all being said, worst case scenario (in the best case scenario, meaning all trials go as hoped and there aren't any major hurdles like the HOLD) GERN sees half the highs PCYC, which would put them at around $75 as share.
Do you know whether PCYC had about the same number of outstanding shares when they inked their deal as GERN has? I'm not a financial analyst -- I animate characters in video games for a living -- but it seems to me GERN has a lot of outstanding shares that Shorts are able to "borrow" and keep the price down -- at will! 1) is GERN diluted more than the average biotech and 2) if GERN has more shares, wouldn't it be a longer and less steep hill to climb once the shorts get done "shorting around" as you so aptly described it? (and conversely, if they have less shares)
this is compelling! are they similar in outstanding shares and similar in the deal they made (amount of royalties and milestone payments)? That stock went from about 14.55 in December of 2011 to $150 just three years later for a market cap of 10 billion. You think the same could happen with Geron?
Also, what happens if Geron makes a drug similar to Imetelstat, but for non-hematological tumors? Could they do that?
if they are splitting costs 50/50, ignoring all the costs Geron has paid for the past 20 some years on their own, why aren't the two companies splitting profits as well. Why only 15 - 25% for Gern?