Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Mutually exclusive events cannot happen simultaneously. So, a coin flip is either heads or tails. Passing through an intersection requires choosing one direction over another. A football pass is either caught or it isn't.
Dr. Hampel can leave Anavex and the company can still win FDA approval. Both of these events could happen at the same time, unlike flipping a coin or something. Therefore, they are -not- mutually exclusive.
At least I think that's how it goes...
Again, what does it matter? There is no connection between Dr. Hampel's tenure at Anavex and Blarcamesine's efficacy. Even if Dr. Hampel did a 180 and now believes Anavex doesn't stand a chance (and I challenge you to find any evidence of this), that doesn't mean he's correct.
I don't know if you follow American politics but Sarah Huckabee Sanders left the White House in 2019. Do you think she quit her press secretary job because she suddenly disliked Trump? People leave jobs all the time for all sorts of reasons.
Trying to draw a conclusion that's not grounded in fact is what gets people into all sorts of trouble. Unless you have proof that Dr. Hampel's departure had something to do with Blarcamesine being ineffective, which you don't, I don't really understand the purpose of bringing him up?
Dr. Hampel's departure and FDA approval are not mutually exclusive.
Does it make you feel any better to know that if there were a material retraction (i.e., the data did not meet endpoints), the company would have been required to alert shareholders via an 8-K?
Read into the company removing stuff from its website all you want -- it's a far stretch to connect that to the data not being accurate when it was reported at CTAD.
We've reached a point where the criticisms are directed toward our CEO, not the company itself. Many years ago before it even had a name, most of the criticism centered around Blarcamesine's efficacy. Someone once compared it to a few cups of coffee. Others dismissed its potential because Anavex's market cap was under $500 million and historically, those companies mostly failed. Betting against Anavex was the mathematically smart play and attacking the science was the path of least resistance because 96% of Alzheimer's drugs did indeed fail.
Today we have the benefit of several years worth of data and there's been an observable shift from attacking Blarcamesine to questioning Dr. Missling's integrity and competence. Again, this is now the smart play because Blarcamesine's data speaks volumes and Dr. Missling cannot speak at all. It's easy to criticize someone who can't defend himself.
Sure, some will still harp on trial design, changing goalposts, etc., but the addition of Dr. Jin should put to rest any concerns that Anavex isn't following accepted statistical norms.
Peer review, patent applications, all this stuff takes time. I bought my wife a Christmas present yesterday when I saw it went on sale for Amazon Prime Day. Just because I bought it now doesn't mean I have to give it to her immediately. Same holds true with the data everyone wants to see. Releasing it now will expose it to the same criticism from the same people who don't trust Dr. Missling. So we wait for peer-review, which will shut up the naysayers just as it recently did when the Rett article was published.
There was never going to be any question whether Leqembi would replace Aricept. It's a more effective drug based on an extra decade of R&D.
The question is what will replace Leqembi because it's clearly not the end game with Alzheimer's research. More importantly, what is the hurdle for any successors?
If Blarcamesine runs a proper P3 confirmatory trial and ends up with 20% vs Leqembi's 27%, but it's a pill without side effects, will that be enough to satisfy the FDA?
Will the FDA be more open to approving for Alzheimer's with a limited data set if Blarcamesine is already on the market for Rett?
Lequembi's 27% is going to have its time in the sun. 22% or 27% doesn't matter to me (I think your math is correct for what it's worth). All I care about is whether Anavex has something better than Leqembi.
Where's the evidence that it doesn't? I haven't heard anyone trying to dismiss the science, the MOA, etc recently.
27% may be a tough hurdle to clear for plaque removal drugs, which is why I am betting on something entirely new. Nobody knows if Sigma-1 is the solution but you have to admit the data seems promising, or else none of us would still be here talking about Anavex.
Let's see what happens if/when Blarcamesine is approved for Rett. I'll guess it's a back of the paper blurb in the newspapers you cited. If there's approval for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, my guess is we'll see the front page or two.
Right now to the NYT or WSJ, Anavex is one of about a dozen promising companies working on neurological disorders. When there's legitimate news to report that the masses will understand simply by reading the headline, it will be reported. And if it isn't, so what?
The only report I am interested in reading will be from Stat News, written by Adam Feuerstein, either acknowledging he was wrong or publicly denouncing the FDA. But we all know that we'll see neither, as he and others (including many posters here) will slip silently into the night and will re-emerge with another early stage biotech to short.
If the 1.87 number being thrown around is a significant effect size for the ideal patient, and this data has been peer-reviewed, I would dare to say that's the nail in the coffin for shorts regarding the Rett story. And worst case even if Anavex were simply a Rett drug manufacturer, the profits would still be sufficient.
It's always important to set an appropriate discount rate when valuing a company, especially one that doesn't yet have any cash flow or earnings.
The fact cash accounts are paying 4% tells me all I need to know about Anavex's current valuation. When money becomes more expensive again, investors will be okay with assuming more risk in their portfolios for higher returns.
It takes on average 10 years to bring a drug to market. If we assume everything really began in 2014, we aren't even at the 10 year mark. And there was a 2.5 year shutdown.
How do you say that the ten years is a red flag when the length of time is on par with other drugs that have been developed in recent years?
I am not saying there was a backroom FDA deal where it was decided to delay an effective drug for profit motives. I don't believe in the cabal theory, either, although I do acknowledge there are a handful of influential bloggers who do not believe in Anavex's science or track record. and report misinformation without penalty.
My point was that Anavex most likely needs more time, and while we wait for confirmatory results, it's Eisai and Biogen's turn to profit from their drug discovery. Dr. Missling clearly saw the writing on the wall when he pivoted to Rett. Go back and read the message board, a lot of people here were not happy about the perceived distraction from Alzheimer's in favor of a rare disease with limited earnings potential.
Do you think Dr. Missling read the room properly or is it possible that during his conversations with the FDA he was encouraged to run Rett trials? That's about the extent my conspiracy theory senses will allow me to go, but I don't think it's out of the ordinary for the FDA to not want two competing drugs released at the same time for any indication, let alone one that costs billions to develop.
There is a process when it comes to peer review. It all starts with the author(s) submitting, then after the manuscript has been received it's initially screened by the editor. If it's not rejected, it's sent to X,Y,Z reviewers. They'll provide notes and there's usually an opportunity for the authors to acknowledge them and explain their findings in more detail. If the reviewers are satisfied, they'll approve for publication. If not, they'll recommend rejecting it. Ultimately it's the journal editor's final call.
Each stage can take between 2-3 months.
There are also 4 different types of submissions -- sometimes reviewers are blinded and do not know who is submitting, but with a drug like Blarcamesine everyone will know it's Anavex anyway so there's no need to shield the authors' names.
You make a fair point about the share price so let's discuss it for a moment. Your argument is that Anavex's share price is a reflection in the market's confidence and I will concede that point. You also argue that more effective communication could and should be higher if not for Dr. Missling's perceived shortcomings.
My counterargument is that Anavex is appropriately valued right now. Objectively speaking, it had no business trading at $30 two years ago, nor did GameStop have any business trading at $400 or whatever it ended up at. There are tons of companies that the market over and under-values; Tesla is a cool brand right now but is it really worth more than all the other car manufacturers combined? AMD was trading around the same as Anavex in 2015 but since then there's been a huge surge in demand for processing power. Markets are often slow to recognize and quick to catch up. I suspect that's what is happening with Anavex,.
And before some pumpers become triggered when I say that Anavex is fairly valued at $8.50, let me reemphasize the key words "right now." In the future I expect it will be valued much higher but right now it still doesn't have any ability to produce revenue and that's a red flag to most investors who play it safe and fund managers' whose only job is not to lose client money. If I give $50,000 to a financial advisor and I get 4% back, I may not be thrilled that I didn't beat the market but I won't be upset either. Contrast that with losing everything. Simply put, Anavex is like freshly-caught sushi: to people who have tried it, we know how good it is. But to someone who may not be a fan of seafood or who has a more simple palate, there isn't anything about sushi that looks appetizing. It takes time for people to try new things, and it takes time for people to become comfortable with riskier investments.
It's likely that we'll get Rett approval and it's also likely that we'll need a confirmatory trial for Alzheimer's -- if for no other reason than the FDA will allow Biogen and Eisai to recoup some profit before approving a competitor. Rett revenue + current cash on hand should be more than enough to prevent further dilution.
Dr. Missling's job isn't to convince you or me that Anavex is worthy. His job is to convince the FDA, and so far I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe the FDA will not be receptive to the data he presents. At worst it'll want more and that's okay. And while Blarcamesine may never be the miracle drug we all hoped it could be during the Anavex Plus days, all it has to do is be as effective as Leqembi with fewer side effects and in pill form. That's it. I'll take that bet any day of the week based on what I've seen so far.
I'll address your points one by one.
1. Irony is the divergence between the expected and unexpected. You're describing hypocrisy, not irony. Semantics aside, it's true that I cannot speak to Dr. Jin's true intentions or his profit motives. I do know he's a career civil servant who at any point in time could have jumped ship and made 5x what Uncle Sam pays. Not everyone is wired to where money is their primary motivating factor. Dr. Jin stands to make a lot of money if the company succeeds. If the company fails, he'll make some money but not as much as he could have made elsewhere. So I guess in a way our risk is his risk.
2. Dr. Missling sells shares at opportune times. Even with all the offerings, the share count is still under 100 million and there's enough money to run a P3 trial without further dilution. We should all be grateful that he was smart enough to sell shares when the Wall Street Bets crowd artificially manipulated stock prices across the board two years ago.
3. The rare pediatric voucher is worth $100 million. That's not insignificant. It's enough to fund one, maybe two more trials. Or it can be used for the Alzheimer's data to be expedited when it's ready. Either way, there isn't a single company out there that wouldn't like to have one and Anavex is about to land one.
4. Every investment should be weighed against the next best alternative. It's called opportunity cost. If I am going to dedicate 20% of my portfolio to biotech, I want to pick the best biotechs. Part of that means looking at other companies. I'm under no obligation to hold Anavex stock. I choose to because of things like its strong financial position vis-a-vis other similarly-staged companies.
5. A cashless exercise simply means he sold excess shares to pay for the stock. Not everyone has a cool $800k sitting around. If Dr. Missling wanted to, he could have converted all his warrants and then dumped every share, taking home a large cash payday. Instead, he converted his warrants and received no net cash. He did add to his share count which, again, is a bullish indicator and you know it.
6. Regarding AI, to quote Trinidad James and later, Bruno Mars, "Don't believe me, just watch." You laugh at Sigma-1 activation but the platform being built could be the next thing in modern medicine, as could precision genome-based targeting. AI might be a marketing gimmick in 2023, but by 2028 it could very well be used to confirm a 5 year preventative / prophylactic study. That thing on your head is not a hat rack -- try to think beyond the short-term limitations to see the potential. If you can't, so be it. Not everyone sees things. I didn't think people would pull over off the highway to buy a 25 cent hamburger. We all miss the big picture once in a while.
7. No, I was thinking more like Charles Woodson with the Packers, Peyton Manning with the Broncos, Reggie White with the Packers. The athletes you mentioned were all past their prime when their bodies became slower and weaker. I don't suspect that Dr. Jin's 40 time or bench press matter all that much to Anavex.
8. Give the odds of journal publication whatever percentage you'd like. It's not as if you have any influence or inside knowledge. Time will decide who is right and who is wrong. I just hope you have the cajones to admit that you're wrong if this gets FDA approval. If it fails to receive approval I'll be the first to admit I swung and missed. Not the first time and it won't be the last that's happened...
There are some here who want to convince me that Anavex is a poor investment, and these are the reasons why:
1. Dr. Missling is intentionally scamming investors by slow-rolling bad data
2. Dr. Missling is attending investor road shows with the sole intention of serving fund managers a sh*t sandwich.
3. Dr. Jin chose Anavex because it was the highest bidder and he couldn't care less about the company or its pipeline
4. The data is average at best, cherry-picked, lipstick on a pig, etc. At worst, it's manipulated with changing goalposts but either way the company cannot be trusted.
Here's what the short sellers are not mentioning or challenging in their posts
1. Anavex's robust balance sheet
2. The value of the rare pediatric priority review voucher
3. The limited number of shares issued relative to other P3 biotechs
4. Dr. Missling recently chose stock over cash
5. Dr. Jin's credentials or expertise
They say that Dr. Jin is just taking a pay day, but they don't provide any evidence for why I should believe them over the quote that Dr. Jin said in the PR:
"Anavex has a cutting-edge technology that can make a great deal of difference to those patients. I believe I can make a substantial contribution at this very important time in the Company’s transition towards commercialization.”
Until I have reason to believe otherwise, I'm going to trust Dr. Jin over a message board stranger. That's what 27 years of FDA experience affords in terms of credibility. Why shouldn't I believe him, and why shouldn't I be as excited as he appears to be?
To use a sports analogy, Dr. Jin is a home run free agent acquisition and those are never cheap. Sometimes they turn out to be busts and other times they help struggling teams win championships. But the immediate benefit to any big splash free agent signing is credibility. The long-term benefit is hopefully more than that, but right now Anavex needs to build credibility for when it does release the data. My guess is we'll see a PR and journal publication in Q4.
More importantly, my plan as of now is to hold until this potentially becomes a preventative treatment. Doing some back of the napkin math, if the daily global cost averaged to 40 cents/day, and 1 billion people globally took it from say, age 60+, that's something like $146 billion in annual gross revenue and all of a sudden I am venturing into WGT territory so I'll stop the day dream here.
That's only 180 days away. No big deal.
Well said. It's like a teacher writing 5+5=10 on the chalk board over and over, but one of the equations says 5+5=20.
The answer could be correct 99/100 times, and all everyone will see or focus on is the answer that is wrong. People see what they want to see. I'll say it again -- I challenge anyone here to name a publicly traded CEO who hasn't made a mistake or two in his or her career.
I do not believe the FDA is corrupt. I also believe that Leqembi should be approved with the condition the name follows proper grammar and adds a "u" after the "q".
Griping aside, let's all acknowledge the situation with a healthy dose of realistic perspective: Eisai and Biogen are going to get theirs. The drug will be approved because it works better than Aricept. It comes with some risks for some people, but that's like saying we should ban airplanes because every so often one malfunctions or the pilot wasn't trained properly. More people will benefit from Leqembi than will be harmed by it.
Unless Blarcamesime just absolutely blows away the competition, the FDA is going to give Biogen and Eisai some time to make a profit. Requiring a confirmatory P3 trial makes more sense than accelerated approval and P4, presenting direct competitio that might disincentive future research if a company knows it can spend billions only to see the FDA approve a competitor immediately thereafter.
I believe this explains the rather sudden pivot toward Rett. Dr. Missling either read the writing on the wall or was explicitly told in conversation with the FDA to pursue another indication because Alzheimer's may take a while. And fortunately, he did and we're in good shape for Rett approval in 2024. Future dilution concerns evaporate and Blarcamesine gains credibility.
Let Biogen and Eisai do their thing while we do ours. Time goes by quickly when you stop thinking about it and Rett should provide an exit opportunity for those who wish to get out with a profit.
Haha, lecturing is a bit strong. Just trying to present a more balanced perspective. If the complaint is that Dr. Missling is overpaid, why? What is the metric that we're looking at? It should ultimately be stock price appreciation, which under Dr. Missling's tenure to date exceeds 1000%.
That's good enough for me, for now.
I don't presume to know your background, education or expertise. You could be Warren Buffett for all I know, but that doesn't make the following points any less valid. I'll try to address each of yours with the devil's advocate perspective.
1. Compensation: If you're a numbers guy, the stock price is up like 1000% since 2014. How is that not sufficient shareholder value creation for you? It's not like he was playing some incredible hand when he took over. Anavex was nearly defunct. It's only asset were some patents for a crazy Sigma-1 theory. If Anavex went belly up 18 months after Dr. Missling took over, would anyone have been surprised?
Today, the company is running multiple late-stage trials, it's debt free with enough cash runway for several years, it's recruiting respected scientists and FDA experts, it has access to capital negotiated at a time when lending conditions were more favorable than today, and its managed to keep its share count under 100 million. It's also remained on Nasdaq for several years and has only had one reverse split in its history.
How much do you think a CEO like that is worth? $350k net + performance-based options sounds pretty cheap to me.
2. Everyone makes mistakes, BioChecker. Even the best CEOs make plenty of them.
Do you remember the Amazon phone? Or when the Apple BoD fired Steve Jobs? How about when Citigroup canned Jamie Dimon, or when Michael Bloomberg received the axe at Solomon Brothers?
I challenge you to find me a publicly traded CEO who hasn't made mistakes. I respect Dr. Missling for not panicking. He keeps moving forward. When things are in a "Dead Period", he's submitting new patents and probably having all sorts of discussions with various entities from potential partners to the FDA to various international regulators to insurance companies to fund managers. And of course, we're also waiting for peer-review because that's the final nail in the coffin for skeptics that the data is cherry-picked or the trial design is flawed to the point the drug can't be approved. He can release something now but what's the point if only the same people who believe him today will believe him later?
3. Dr. Missling's communication has been improving. That's what I like to see, learning from mistakes is a good thing. As Steve Jobs once said, "mistakes mean things are happening." A recent PR was more explicit that the company is talking to the FDA, quelling a big debate on this board up until then.
You're disappointed in the stock price because you lack perspective. Anyone who bought in early, 2015-2018, is thrilled with the stock price. Many are riding free shares but even for those who aren't, the downside risk is much reduced compared to years past.
My advice to you is the same I once told a kid who showed incredible potential in the youth basketball team I coached: relax and be patient, enjoy the passage of time. This kid was easily good enough to play high school ball as a middle schooler but his school wouldn't allow it. It was out of his control and he just had to wait. As do we. A new CEO could do a slop job of rushing the NDA and exposing himself to actual merited criticism, or he can be patient, wait for peer-review, apply for a bunch of patents that take time to be reviewed, etc. I'd much prefer to have a CEO who exhibits patience and calmness amongst criticism than a CEO who rushes through a 10+ year approval process because a few shareholders want it completed in 8.
BioChecker,
Thanks for posting why you are so convinced that AVXL is a dud way back in 2018. I get it, most of us have been burned at one point or another. I once invested in a company where the CEO was arrested spending 400k of shareholder funds on adult websites.
It's a common fallacy to think that because you've been burned in the past that it will happen again in the future. Anavex is not Northwest Bio, or any of those other scam companies. Good things are happening. Not as quickly as a lot of people hope, but that's on them not the company.
It comes down to whether Dr. Missling is trustworthy. I've met my share of con artists and they're nothing like Dr. Missling. I feel bad for the guy -- he's asked to make predictions and when there are delays beyond his control he gets blamed. When he releases the data on time he's called a liar. And when he says nothing, everyone panics.
But will those SAVA returns be 2.5x greater than Anavex's returns? Because Anavex is a cheaper stock to own right now, making it perhaps the better value if all else is equal.
Investing in Anavex ultimately boils down to three simple questions:
1. Do you trust Dr. Missling?
2. Does Blarcamesine activate the Sigma-1 receptor?
3. Does Sigma-1 activation do anything beneficial to the brain or body?
If the answer to any of these three questions is no, shareholders lose. If the answer to all three is yes, then Anavex will be the sole owner of some extremely valuable Sigma-1 patents and that should be enough to make the company a desirable M&A target.
Notwithstanding the fact I generally disagree with your opinion regarding Dr. Missling's performance from 2014-present, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
My guess is that they won't try the same thing again this time. They won't fumble the data and the results will be stellar. If nothing else, the expertise of Dr. Jin will see that the only data submission that matters is submitted correctly. If it takes the company longer to wait for peer review, etc., so be it.
What does it matter if she is no longer alive? Valerie was born in 1940, even if she died 6 years ago her death wouldn't be statistically out of the ordinary based on average life expectancy.
I think you're missing the point that Anavex doesn't have to prolong life expectancy, it just needs to improve quality of life. Everything from that 2016 news broadcast indicates that it accomplished its goal. Same with Rett anecdotes posted online by caregivers.
While it would be nice to have a drug that does both, most people would gladly take Blarcamesine if it can keep people mentally sharp in their final years. At some point we all lose cognitive function and that's why longevity is not one of the primary endpoints.
That guy is sort of a joke on the Stocktwits board. I wouldn't put much stock in what he says. He changes his mind about AVXL about as often as I change my underwear.
I trust what Mayo wrote -- that SAVA showed solid results for early-onset symptoms but you have to catch the disease early for its drug to work. I don't own any SAVA but I still believe there's a pathway for its approval. I don't think it'll occur before Anavex hits the market for Rett, and once that happens it should grease the wheels for subsequent indications such as Alzheimers.
Plus we should receive a priority review voucher which will either expedite Alzheimers or Parkinsons, or help cover the cost of additional trials (including a prophylactic long-term study).
And what did that study reveal?
I'll provide the extra unbiased commentary you failed to mention: Oral delivery is sufficient and that's the method that will be made commercially available if approved, compared to the current drugs that require doctor visits and injections.
I'm probably dating myself with this post, but calling donepezil a Sigma-1 drug is sort of like calling Blondie a chart-topping rap artist.
I know a guy whose uncle made a fortune because he invested in a satellite network at a time when television was predominately consumed through underground cables. It took a while but eventually people recognized that satellite tv provided benefits over cable (300 channels vs 30) for roughly the same price.
He later parlayed the profits from that unconventional investment into owning an NHL franchise. I thought it was the coolest thing ever when my friend got a signed Wayne Gretzky hockey stick for his 13th birthday. Fortune favors the bold...
If Sigma-1 turns out to be the next big thing in CNS disease research, Dr. Missling's decision to pursue it full tilt should reward patient shareholders willing to take the risk alongside him.
“Once 2-73 is approved and the full AD data is published, the disease mechanism proposed by Anavex will be taken far more seriously.”
I’d change it to “if 2-73 is approved…”
But your point is valid. And part of the upside is that Anavex will become, overnight, the leader in Sigma-1 knowledge and that will make the company very appealing if others decide maybe there’s something to the upstream MOA.
AAIC is irrelevant. Anavex already revealed the top-line results it will be submitting to the FDA last December. The company is not going to fly to Europe to present a magnified sliver of that data as something new. The next step is to have a peer-reviewed journal publish the full data, including the separated 30/50 dosage analysis, and most likely there will be a PR from the company around the same time.
In the meantime, Dr. Missling is focusing his attention on advancing Rett toward an NDA acceptance and also working on the marketing strategy, which at this point appears to be utilizing the power of AI to help identify potential patients. Whether this is the correct approach remains to be seen (as is the precision medicine approach), but AAIC would be a colossal waste of time and money. Perhaps we'll see a late-breaking PR announcement but I sure hope not. The company's attention right now is better spent on Rett.
If people choose to not believe that Blarcamesine met all endpoints, that's on them. I don't see the need to go to AAIC and repeat the same information. I'm sure Anavex has the data results everyone wants them, but Dr. Missling knows peer-review is the best way to silence the critics who fault the trial design.
AI it appears will be used for marketing. Down the road perhaps it can be expanded for drug development but Dr. Missling’s PR made it seem like he’s trying to get everything ready for the sales launch.
Okay, I'll be nice and play along. You are looking at one cost. What about the costs that Dr. Missling has zero control over, like the price of gas it'll take to deliver the pills from the manufacturing plant to the pharmacies and hospitals? The cost of the plastic tamper-proof bottles the pills come in? What about the cost of marketing the drug? What about the cost of keeping the manufacturing lab sterile?
Sure, the actual cost of the chemicals needed to make a pill may be under $1 but that's just the tip of the iceberg. This is remedial stuff, man. Please stop publicly posting nonsensical and misleading information.
The only way net profit margin is over 90% would be if Dr. Missling resorted to child labor and slavery. Even then, I don't think he'd clear 90% net margins in today's economy. Kids are expensive as any parent will tell you.
Whatever helps you get through the night, pal...
But you just pulled those numbers out of your...
Net margins will be nowhere close to 90%. And the only way for Anavex to hit the 100% range in your estimate would be if it somehow produced Blarcamesine for free.
Gross margins are high. But net margins in pharma are not. They're still double what Amazon, Google, etc. make but that's because they assume significantly more risk than other sectors. It's around 14% vs 7% net. I heard elsewhere that net margins are closer to 20%, so that's why I went with the higher number.
If you want to lower healthcare costs in America without sacrificing profit margin, Congress needs to introduce legislation centered around tort reform, interstate competition and creative subsidies to encourage R&D -- perhaps something along the lines of no corporate income tax for 5 years for every FDA approved drug, with a pass-through provision that employees of said company are also exempt from federal personal income tax.
Until then, expect high prices and low profit margins...
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7054843/
I'm assuming a conservative year 1 target of 1000 treated patients with a focus on the US market.
Not everyone can afford a $500k/year treatment and insurance companies will eventually cover it but they won't do so without a lot of nudging. It's not good for their business model to pay out billions of dollars for new treatments.
Perhaps the greatest misconception on this message board is that there will be immediate and unlimited demand the moment Blarcamesine becomes available, and more importantly, that insurance companies will gladly pay for all of this demand.
Hint: they won't.
There isn't. And it's an important point that I appreciate you highlighting again. The risk is the potential for something to happen. In most instances where loose lips sink ships, nobody planned on doing anything illegal or unethical. It happens accidentally, and that is what I hope can be avoided. The risk doesn't outweigh the reward in my opinion given there's nothing Dr. Grimmer can say that isn't already available to the public.
First off, I never said that Jesse or Dr. Grimmer are doing anything illegal. What I said is that there exists the potential for something illegal to occur should Dr. Grimmer inadvertently say something he shouldn't. This happens all the time, but I am happy to provide examples if you'd like.
To your point, the difference is that generally financial reporters and hedge fund managers interview the CEO, who is advised by legal counsel as to what can or cannot be said. Many times, funds will have their own attorneys review the information prior to publication to make sure they're not disseminating anything incorrectly.
There's no problem with what Jesse is doing so long as everything that is spoken about is public knowledge. The risk of casual conversation (over drinks) straying into something a bit closer to the gray area is what concerns me, and the pay-to-play element is the kindling that might spark the fire that catches the SEC's attention.
But Jesse is intelligent and I am sure he has an attorney assisting him with all of this and what he's allowed to ask and report on.
Nah. I think it's more likely Rett is a small market and there's already an approved drug for it. Assuming best case $500mm gross revenue from Rett, and a 20% profit margin, that's about $100mm revenue, or somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.20 EPS.
Using DCF modeling, if we assume a discount rate of 12% and a growth rate of 15% for Rett over the next 7 years, the future growth value is worth around $9 and some change. Terminal value may add another few dollars.
Rett is not a condition that Wall Street is going to pony up the big bucks for. Alzheimer's is, and I believe the FDA's decision on Rett will be a canary in the coal mine for Alzheimer's approval either next year or in 2026 if another trial is required.
As a member of the advisory committee, is he privy to insider information regarding Anavex and/or is he compensated for his time in any way, including with shares or warrants?
If so, there is a potential legal issue if he were to inadvertently say something in the context of a casual interview that is meant to remain private.
It's more likely the SEC would go after Jesse than Dr. Grimmer or Anavex, because he is collecting donations and providing access to information based on who pays and who doesn't.
Jesse seems like a decent guy which is the only reason I am posting my concern in hopes that he reads this. As much as I'd like to have more information re: Anavex, the most prudent approach would be to have all information coming from the company directly, in properly vetted form.