Thanks. I will have to listen to that CNBC clip later. I think Cowen is at $46 and Jefferies at $50. The Jefferies report mentioned their conservative approach throughout the write-up.
Acadia seems to have started their PDP disease awareness campaign. Thanks to BioBetter on the Investor Village board we see that Acadia sponsored the PDP Roundtable Discussion with 4 doctors. It was a good 4 page read. It appears in the Clinical Neurology News.
He also posted a link to a site procured by Acadia: PDPsychosis
Great video featuring Dr Cummins on this site. So Acadia is executing on their commerical preparations.
Read the Cowen report from a month ago. They only have it pegged for $46. Great details and they surveyed doctors.
I have been in since $2 and have seen many posters list out all the things you have. And there will be more of these comments when we are in the $60's. Not knocking you...just telling you we have seen it before and are used to it. Regarding the NDA, the Company confirmed it will be filed this quarter. I agree, the sooner the better but if they need more time to get it right...so be it.
This game ain't for everyone. There is risk, for sure.
I am very anxious to see the Feb 11th short report for tomorrow's close. I would love to see it go up another 5 percent and they were only able to drop it to $31 (assuming they don't crush it tomorrow).
Given that we received confirmation the NDA will ge filed this quarter at the JPM conference and the amazing upgrade from Jefferies, it is very strange we have not participated on some market strength (ie. market and IBB up today). And we got a freebie on CNBC too.
On Tuesday I put an order in to buy 2,000 shares at $3X.X6(a penny above what it was at ) and I got it for 5 cents less. That has never happened to me. I definitely think there is intentional pressure on the stock. I ain't budging, and good luck trying to move me!
Aldrich is a great CEO. We only got hit with about 7 inches of snow. I attempted to day trade Acadia this week and got roughed up. To be clear, I did not sell my core position...just added some and sold a few hours later for a nice loss. In the meantime, I will keep my day job!
I just ran my revenue predictions with this $13K selling price....wooh, it gives me goose bumps. And i only assumed 37.5 percent market share to be conservative for peak penetration.
Iznogizno, I think you are right about the selling price (Acadia revenue) being as high as $13,000/yr per patient. Sorry man, I really thought that was the retail price. I listened to the JPM conference again. At 7:38 into the Q&A Terry Moore mentions their "WAC" being comparable to Abilify which is $13k.
Here is a good copy and paste regarding drug AWP's and WAC's.
Average Wholesale Price (AWP) as a Pricing Benchmark
Average Wholesale Price (AWP) is a benchmark that has been used for over 40 years for pricing and reimbursement of prescription drugs for both government and private payers. Initially, the AWP was intended to represent the average price that wholesalers used to sell medications to providers, such as physicians, pharmacies, and other customers. However, the AWP is not a true representation of actual market prices for either generic or brand drug products. AWP has often been compared to the “list price” or “sticker price”, meaning it is an elevated drug price that is rarely what is actually paid. AWP is not a government-regulated figure, does not include buyer volume discounts or rebates often involved in prescription drug sales, and is subject to fradulent manipulation by manufacturers or even wholesalers. As such, the AWP, while used throughout the industry, is a controversial pricing benchmark.1,2
The AWP may be determined by several different methods. The drug manufacturer may report the AWP to the individual publisher of drug pricing data, such as Medi-Span. The AWP may also be calculated by the publisher based upon a mark-up specified by the manufacturer that is applied to the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) or direct price (DIRP). The WAC is the manufacturer’s list price of the drug when sold to the wholesaler, while the DIRP is the manufacturer’s list price when sold to non-wholesalers. Typically a 20% mark-up is applied to the manufacturer-supplied WAC or DIRP, which results in the AWP figure.3
The publishers then in turn sell these published AWPs to government, private insurance, and other buyers of prescription drugs, who use these data tables to determine reimbursement and retail prices. Because AWP is a component of the formulas used to determine reimbursement, elevated AWP numbers can drastically increase the dollar amount that government, private insurance programs, and consumers with coinsurance must pay.1
Pharmacies typically buy drugs from a wholesaler and then sell them to the public. Many patients have coinsurance or copayments, where they only pay for a portion of their prescription cost. The insurance company then pays the rest of the cost (the reimbursement) to the pharmacy. Insurance companies include prescription benefit manager (PBM), health maintenance organization (HMO) or government programs, such as Medicaid or Medicare Part B or D.4 In addition, the pharmacy receives a dispensing fee for filling the prescription. Fees are typically set between $3 to $5 per prescription, but may vary by state.1,2
Reimbursements are based on AWPs. However, pharmacies purchase drugs based on the WAC. The difference between the WAC (what the pharmacy actually paid for the drug) and the reimbursement from insurance (based on AWP) is known as the spread, and equates to the profit that the pharmacy receives.5
Market pricing on brand drugs tend to be about 16.6 percent less than the AWP. However, the relation of AWP to generic pricing is not clear. Older generics tend to have a large spread between the AWP and WAC, which in turn gives a large spread, and higher profit margins for the pharmacy or other provider of the drug. Many payers, such as PBMS or HMOs, will determine a maximum allowable cost (MAC) pricing on generics to avoid being overcharged. Newer generic products, compared to older generics, may not have as favorable of a spread, thus the need for MAC.4,5
Collusion between AWP publishers and wholesalers to artificially inflate the AWP, and in turn increase the spread, has lead to court cases in the U.S. In these cases, it was alleged that increasing the spread benefited the wholesaler because customers (pharmacies and large institutions) were more likely to buy from them than a competing wholesaler where the spread was not as desirable. The publisher of AWPs profited because pharmacies were more likely to buy the pricing lists from the publisher that noted the higher AWPs used in calculating the spread, than to buy them from other publishers with lower AWPs. Due to this pricing fraud, many payers, including government payers, are no longer using AWP for pricing, and are switching to other more transparent pricing benchmarks, such as WAC or AMP (average manufacturers price). However, AWP may still be found in use in the U.S. because it has been the standard for decades.4
An NDA filing might be crushing on the shorts afterall. Another delay will certainly be crushing for the longs. Things are starting to get interesting.
5.5 percent increase in shorts putting it all time high short position and we are only 9.4 percent off the all time high in stock price.
I don't mean to get you fired up, but if you really want to be angry go to seekingalpha and read the Aug 5 earnings transcript(actually, just go to the Needham Q&A).
I guess my problem with your post is that I don't seem to recall you being upset and posting about it when they announced the delay in early November. The stock went up big since then and many were quiet. By the way, I expressed my frustration back then. Many replied it is not much of a delay (I agree) and others spoke about the importance they get it right (I agree)...but overall we all kep quiet as the stock rose. Now that it is falling (not much given how much it went up)...some want to complain.
they will file...it may be another month though. think of your Acadia investment in terms of months and quarters and it will help you through the dips. Hang in there...you have all this time. The best is yet to come.
agree so far. I thought we were going toget pounded with the market down this much.
Weird, I saw the Uli sale (1/15/2015) around 6am this morning, but don't see it on Google now. So I apologize if I have snow blindness.
I don't know the reason, but I did see it stick out like a sore thumb when looking at the 1 minute chart right at 4:00pm. I was curious too.
Oh, and as to why I bring it up...it is important because all the posts about a buyout and the buyout of other biotechs seems to involve a metric as a multiple of sales. So a grossed up sales figure would have a huge impact on the buyout price.
It is the second time I brought it up. The first time was when you posted a comment similar to Crecy's post.
And I accept that I might be wrong here, But here is my point and you tell me where I am wrong (or others). The price of Nuplazid is estimated to be $13k/yr per patient. I think we both agree on that. The difference is that I think you believe that all belongs to Acadia as revenue. I think that Acadia's revenue is only approximately 70 percent of that. They bill the distributor for approx $9k/ yr per patient. That is their revenue. The distributor sells it to the patient/insurance co. for $13K/yr...that is the distributors revenue. The distributors expense is the $9k paid to Acadia.
I don't believe Acadia can record revenue of $13k and expense of $9k. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and would be fine being wrong on this, but I don't think so. Let's see if some other longs step in and correct me.