Wrong again. Insurance is already covering it, for every single patient.
This denial situation of your DOES explain your 100% loss on your short position.
1) People have insurance
2) Insurance companies have already agreed to cover it
3) Insurance companies have already agreed to the pricing
4) Insurance plans are already paying for it right now
5) NOBODY is paying for treatment out of pocket
6) There are 15,000 diagnosed patients worldwide (not a theoretical 1 in a million that comes from the wiki referenced 1993 study that was built on 1970 data)
7) Total Available Market (TAM) is $4.5B
How do you reconcile your own inconsistency?
On one hand you reference 1-in a million because wiki reported it.
On the other hand the very same Wiki reports that 87% of all in the US have insurance, yet you pretend insurance doesn't exist, even though your Wiki-bible says it does.
Still, you claim that nobody will be able to afford treatment, while you ignore insurance.
Even though the insurance companies already met with AEGR and have ALREADY AGRRED TO COVER IT & PRICING.
You still ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to learn Arthur/Censored/AdamWang/Samsoreloser!
Stop investing through the rear view mirror. The past does not equal the future (except insofar as your inability to learn).
You STILL reference that outdated probability-statistic of 1 in a million instead of the 15,000 ACTUAL CASES DIAGNOSED. It's the difference between a theoretical model and reality.
More of that "Research" VooDoo and all that nonsense about checking facts and references. Censored-Sam-Arthur-Adam can't fathom any of those ideas.
Facts & figures will make Arthur/AdamWang/Censored/Sam's head explode.
Yes, the entire country is against you. Suuurrreeeee.
Hey, I know. Let's test your theory. You leave the country for a few decades and lets see if they still bother you.
Wrong on all counts. You can't simply use some random % as "fair". It doesn't work that way. There are minimal production costs. There are 100M users and 1B pills that need to be manufactured. This is a high priced, low volume (relatively) situation, therefore your pretend % doesn't work.
15,000 patients * $300K/year = $4.5B/year in revenues.
We can logically subtract the $74M/year that they currently spend, though that includes a lot of R&D that is not recurring - still, that is offset by the increased cost of the sales force.
It still is not meaningful in the overall computation because the costs are trivial compared to the revenue. If it makes you feel better, round up by 33% to $100M on the costs, bump the $4.5B down to $4.4B, divide that by 28M shares and we get $157.14/share EARNINGS (not revenue).
PE10 = $1,571.40
PE20 = $3,142.80
So, costs are not a relevant factor compared with revenue.
Even your pretend % doesn't work - because $4.5B @ 30% profit still yields $48/share:
PE10 = $480/share (and if they only capture half the market then $240/share).
PE20 = $960/share (and if they only capture half the market then $480/share).
PE40 = $1,920/share (and if they only capture half the market then $960/share).
No matter how you look at it, at $100/share, WAY under valued. Thanks for helping me make my point.
Still ramping up.