The float is 32M shares and 26M shares were traded yesterday - I'm guessing that the shorts closing out their positions is what kept the above 15 at the open yesterday. I wouldn't count on any meaningful squeeze from here.
PTCT and Etep address completely different patient groups/mutations - approving Etep will do nothing for the patients that are targeted to benefit from PTCT.
I am hoping their guidance is ultra-conservative - they have already indicated that they feel comfortable with the Q1 analyst estimate of $17.6M, which is 50% above the q1-2015 revenue ($11.7M). With the added sales reps that are supposed to start producing in the 2nd half and traction in the DermaCell line, it is hard to imagine them only doing 30% in the back half of the year?
Unfortunately, yes - even if you assume that the guidance is conservative (it better be), they won't be close to breakeven until late 2017 or 2018. As long as the placements and recurring revenue continue to grow as they have (10%+ quarter over quarter), then the share price shouldn't get hit too bad in the near term. The first half of 2015 was weak, so the comparisons the next couple of quarters should be easy to beat on the 35% guidance - they would only need to do $16M of revenue in Q1 this year to exceed 35% growth over Q1-2015 ($11.7M).
The technology and the growth story is still attractive, but I still am underwhelmed with the execution by this CEO. They have talked about penetrating international markets for 2+ years and I believe in today's call he indicated that international revenue should grow at a similar rate as the US market - the international revenue is currently negligible, so 35% on top of that is meaningless. Two years ago, I thought they would be profitable by now and was hoping they wouldn't sell out too soon - now I am hoping they sell the company to a larger firm that realizes the potential of the technology - waiting for this CEO to tap that potential is frustrating.
Your "simple" analysis assumes that the FDA's preliminary assessment of the data vs natural history is the final word. The company has already pointed out flaws in the FDA's assessment of the data and the AdCom could come to a completely different conclusion - unless you believe the FDA will ignore the AdCom, it is not that clear. The AdCom is likely to conclude that there is some dystrophin being produced, but nobody has the answer on what level is required to produce a clinical benefit and the data on the 12 boys may not be conclusive of a clinical benefit, but is sufficient for conditional/accelerated approval.
They didn't miss - they only pre-announced revenue (which was the same) and the earnings of -0.17 include warrant revaluation of -.06 , so the adjusted earnings was -0.11 vs the estimate of -0.15. Analyst estimates never include warrant revaluation.
By all accounts, the earnings call was solid - plenty of reasons to believe this company will be worth a lot more in 18 months (w bacteria panel on the market and hemostasis on the horizon) and they have the cash to get there. I could understand the lack of speculative value if the technology was unproven, but that is certainly not the case here. There may be some execution risk on the marketing/adoption side, but there really is no competition that can touch this technology and the odds are that they will dominate the market within 5 years.
Just to show how broken the market is, they last raised cash two years ago (Feb 2014), selling 6.325M shares at $18.95 per share for a total raise of $120M - the current enterprise value is around $120M. You can argue that the market was inflated when they sold the shares, but given the pipeline progress since then, it is hard to imagine the value cratering to where it is now.
I'm sure if there is a market for it, they will develop it. They have spoken to how flexible the technology is - it is just a question of prioritizing opportunities/investments.