One win after another.................a truly impressive string! So why are we still at $6 and not $10? That's because only Benjamin is a winner................ the rest of CERS management is more like clown circus................they will succeed (I believe) but it will take longer and be more tortured then we expect. Wall Street knows this, the analysts know better than to jump in until the money is in the bank, and the major owners here are covered with their shorts and can play the game short term and long term. I will still buy more anytime the stock falls below $6. I am keeping everything crossed for a positive CC and not more of " we are projecting revenues in line with last year". I only got so many years left and I would like to purchase my first Mercedes with cash.
Looking at the patent portfolio many years ago I recall it being well covered and the process/manufacture area are protected. Just remember however there are many platelet/plasma PI methods out there using different chemicals/processes to inactivate nucleic acid replication some used years before Intercept and still being used in EU. There is a least one other well known method for RBC PI. CERS just imo has the best method backed up by the best scientific evidence, and most importantly an FDA approval in the USA for platelets/plasma.
Well revenue 250M is a very big difference compared to the the 30M-38M CERS has been making!!!!!!!!!!!
"5) Effective January 1, 2016, each Intercept platelet kit is reimbursed at $642 (each kit once used per transfusion)."
I have no idea why you continue to post this in a way to make it seem pertinent to CERS revenue stream. It does matter that the reimbursement rates for hospitals and out patient transfusion centers be set so that they can get compensated for the increased cost of Intercept platelets but does not relate in any way to the revenue that CERS receives for the sale of each kit to the blood supplier. Someone who reads your post might think that CERS gets $642 for each platelet kit. This is not true.
Hopefully I am full of hot air, but you watch the administrative costs, etc rise rapidly.Listen to the CC again. I bet burn will be over $10M in the first quarter and continue to rise in 2016.
I agree with your reasoning on all the other points and this should be a rapid and fairly easy implementation, however......
"So I don't see any reason why the lunch in the US would have the same issues .
Also the approval for platelets in 100% plasma and the new quidence documents is a boost to accelerate product adoption."
I'm not talking about the approval process, only the implementation process. Once contracts were signed in Switzerland, Austria go back and see how long it took until the product actually started to get used. I hope you are right and I am wrong..... believe me but it this management team is consistent it will take much longer than anticipated. That is why we are getting the " we cant really make any predictions when and if we can surpass $34 million in revenue". Go back to the conference call and listen to analysts scratching their heads at the disconnect on projected revenue. With the time of release advantage for blood suppliers and reduced testing for supplier and user you would think they would be knocking our doors down to ramp up kit production. But you got maybe the red cross will start using our product in a few of their centers of the by the end of the 3rd quarter.
You never want to be in a position where the lenders are holding all the cards, Borrowing money when you don't need it now, but know you will need funds to ramp up production,distribution, sales, etc in 2017-2018. The platelet/plasma PI is out there, its only a matter of time until it becomes the SOC in the western world. The problem is that CERS is very slow in implementing adoption, they have been struggling in EU for 10 years! It is going to take longer than we think, we might not see a better revenue picture until early 2017 but with the approval of plasma suspended platelets I cant imagine why it would take that long.
I don't think there will be a secondary until we see at least one good quarter of rising revenue. they do have enough cash until next year but it would be stupid to do a secondary on the last 12-9 months of cash... too much risk of a market rocking event that would depress prices for a time. I see the 3rd quarter, something like $50M. Hopefully they get more than $5, but CERS does always sell at a deep discount to share price when they do a secondary, so I would guess it will be in the mid $6 range if the stock gets to $7 by August.
Doctors, nurses, etc know very little. They want to know even less............... they have many more important things to know to keep us alive. Basically all these decisions are made by bureaucrats in the FDA, bean counters, transfusion centers, blood suppliers, blood testing corporations. Their main goal is to supply a reasonably safe product at a low a price as possible. Only when enough people started to die from HIV transmitted transfusion and started to complain did any change in donor screening/testing take place. Nothing has changed..............but now its getting difficult to keep the supply somewhat safe by screening and testing. T. Cruzi was ignored until 5 transplant patients died in LA to a Chagas infected donor. That got someones attention. When a doctor orders a transfusion he/she assumes the FDA, blood suppliers, transfusion ctrs, etc have done their jobs. Like when you order your steak at your upscale restaurant. Unfortunately healthcare money is the primary factor. But now Intercept is becoming cost effect with the increasing risks and shrinking donor pools..................................................and is safer to boot.
Don't forget what happen last time, CERS didn't split the short term one time event users from the chronic multi-event users. When antibodies formed in the chronic transfused group the red cell product became unapprovable. So this time they hedged their bets and split the trial so that if the chronic group still forms antibody they can try for limited single event use. This will become a nightmare for transfusion services for several reasons if they decide to use Intercept Red Cells. They will have to segregate the Intercept Red Cells so that multievent patients do not get IRCs and keep track of who got IRC. This will also create outdating problems if the IRCs dont get used in this population group............ not many units are used in elective type surgeries, etc.. Now this will not be a problem if the chronically transfused group shows no problems. Sure knowing what I know I would prefer IRCs but they might never get licensed for long term/repeated use and if that is true this become a small niche product,
I think you are forgetting that platelets in USA come from pheresis with each pheresis draw containing at least 6-10 platelet units and transfused this way. So you really have to use 400K platelet units to do your calculation
and multiply by what CERS will get not the $642 which is the hospital/transfusion ctr re-imbursement amount not what CERS charges. Be conservative and say CERS makes 50-100 USD per unit and you get $30 million sweeeeeeeeeeet profit!
And with todays approval hope we can tap into this market before the 4th quarter.
That's an urban myth. They will let them be borrowed no matter what you do as long as they are broker held. Unfortunately and inconvienently the only way you can stop this is to hold the shares in paper form yourself.
"Cerus Receives FDA Approval for Use of the INTERCEPT Blood System for Platelets Suspended in 100% Plasma"
This is a very big deal! Most of platelet pheresis in USA is set up this way and now allows CERS access to this market!
The market for red cell transfusion will be small, basically only for those acute short term events like cardiac surgery not for all red cell transfusions you try repeatedly to tell us. Most transfusion centers will find this limited use very unattractive and most likely will not want to adopt a product for such a limited patient population.
1.8 million? Must not be a very desperate situation to the CDC. I think they spend more than that for coffee for their committee meetings. Again the same mantra..... we have the situation under control.
And this is really because the blood suppliers, transfusion centers, and the FDA always downplay the risks with their mantra of the blood supply is safe. We know what we are doing...we screen our donors and test for infectious diseases so don't worry. Its a half truth but its worked since the discovery of HIV transmission in blood products. Bottom line ..........money still makes the world go round!
I hope you are right. That revenue projection at the CC had me scratching my head! WTF! I do hope they were snowballing us. How could they project less than 40 million unless something is very wrong with the French contract? Have they decided to drop Intercept?
It is an issue because they are burning through 40 million just in operating expenses. That was last year, it will be at least 50 million in my opinion this year. Their administrative costs are soaring and option grants are way out of line with revenue.
At least we agree on the platelet/plasma revenue potential and this is why I'm very bullish on the company even at this pps. The thing that is frustrating with CERS is the time it takes to turn those government approvals, signed contracts, etc into something tangible on the bottom line. It looks like 2016 will be a bust revenue wise if we believe the bean counters here. And history should have taught me it always takes this management team twice as long as is reasonable. But you are way too optimistic in your posts. When Obi tells you potential you should ask WHEN, WHEN, WHEN. When they get (if they get) RBC approval in EU it will take CERS 5 years to get 10% of that potential market. And we wont have 105 million shares outstanding. I will bet you that the company is going to print at least 20-30 million shares this year before the 3rd quarter. They are burning through cash like no tomorrow and will float shares before they get down to a year of operating cash which would be in 2017. Yes one day you have a 150 stock price but it wont be in my lifetime (10 more years).