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.
Actually I've got a trade-weighted negative cost-basis on RVNC. Why don't you ask ChatGPT to explain to you what that means.
LOL! @anesthesia doc went to medical school and is using ChatGPT to analyze trial data!
Check out my much better human analysis of RelabotulinumtoxinA in post #5869 here: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173647741
If RVNC shareholders should be concerned then EOLS shareholders should be terrified.
It's unlikely that RelabotulinumtoxinA will match Daxxify in duration based on the little clinical data Galderma has released. Remember when the real-world caught up with Daxxify's massaged clinical data? The same thing will happen to RelabotulinumtoxinA and RelabotulinumtoxinA isn't as good duration-wise as Daxxify in the clinic—if it was Galderma would be sure to give us the data (see comparison below). The liquid formulation might be nice for some intellectually-challenged injectors like Dr. Piasecki, but obviously patients don't care about that.
I'm more concerned about Ipsen's LANT (Long Acting Neurotoxin) in clinical development, but that is likely a 2026 story at the earliest.
Galderma tells us about 2-pt improvement at one month but only gives us "'improved' or better" numbers at 6 months and a 6 month return to baseline (not the same as "none or mild" at 6 months).
Put another way: RVNC sold 39% as much Daxxify with only 24% of the customer base. Not bad.
Fair enough. You're not pro bono and you make more money selling Jeuveau—it's something Revance clearly needs to overcome—but a greedy investor is not the same as a greedy practitioner. In the world of medicine there's a code of ethics to do the best for your patient—not just to make the most money for yourself. Aesthetics falls outside the world of medicine even if many of its practitioners are doctors. In therapeutics that won't fly and doctors will have an expectation to use the obviously superior toxin: Daxxify. In aesthetics, practitioners will be forced to carry Daxxify when patients start demanding it or going elsewhere—it's happening already, albeit slowly. You seem to be quite good at reading the tea leaves so I anticipate that by the end of 2024 you will be offering Daxxify in your practices and will also have increased your RVNC position relative to your EOLS position.
I agree completely with your analysis of EOLS' journey and how the street sees RVNC now.
My issue, and why I call you greedy, is because you conflate RVNC's sales struggles with Daxxify being undesirable. You insinuate that Jeuveau is just as good. Dozens upon dozens of individual accounts contradict that opinion. There are ample resources available now on how to get incredible results with Daxxify. Why are you not utilizing them? If not greed the only other explanation I can think of is incompetence. 🤷🏻♂️
Many or most patients pick an injector and rely on them to recommend the best toxin. Sadly aesthetics is a dirty business with a lot of greedy folks like @boraborak38 who will recommend an inferior toxin to make a few extra bucks for themselves. That is why others here have advocated for a DTC campaign from Revance. Unfortunately, Revance is not able to afford that right now, but they still have a lot of runway for growth from word-of-mouth. Therapeutics should also be different as those doctors tend to be more respectable and patient-oriented.
Daxxify vs Jeuveau sales volume per practice.
*RVNC sold $24,000,000 of Daxxify in Q4. 3,000 total practices have ordered, with a > 66% reorder rate. $8,000 per practice that has ever ordered.
*EOLS sold $61,000,000 of Jeuveau in Q4. 12,400 total practices have ordered, with a 70% reorder rate. $4,919 per practice that has ever ordered.
EOLS grew sales 22% QoQ in Q4. RVNC grew Daxxify units in Q4 also by 22%, but revenue was offset by the price decrease. EOLS stock is outperforming RVNC because EOLS is much further along in their launch trajectory (Jeuveau launched nearly 5 years ago!) and has a much stronger balance sheet presently, NOT because Jeuveau is comparable to Daxxify.
These are all just from the last week. @boraborak38 is a 🤡. I linked him on a paper explaining how to dose Daxxify for excellent results, but he's more interested in milking his clients.
At least you're being honest about being an EOLS shill. There is a constant stream of new practices offering Daxxify and posting about it on social media every week. You choose to use Jeuveau because you are greedy and prefer to make more money off your clients offering them an inferior product.
Agreed. As I mentioned in a recent post, almost all injectors who advertise their Daxxify price per unit on social media continue to charge a significant premium to Botox. But that's exactly why we want prices to be advertised: so injectors offering Daxxify at a reasonable price will win out! Most of the posts offering better prices/offers on Daxxify do not list price per unit, which might be intentional to avoid upsetting Revance.
Exactly what you need @boraborak38. It's only $25 for the full paper. You should do the other aesthetics owners in your circles a solid and share. You'll be the hero when they don't lose patients to other practices offering Daxxify.
Daxxify: Recommendations for Treatment: How and When to Change a Patient from One Neurotoxin to Another.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542432723000395
I can confirm from posts on social media that most injectors (at least those that list their prices) are still charging a significant premium for Daxxify over Botox. I'm not sure what RVNC's official policy on advertising price is now, but many injectors do.
Today is obviously a technical move, but it does show how badly rate fears have hurt small cap stocks like RVNC this year.
But not EOLS. 🤣
The bearish take is that since weight regain was much lower than expected patients could stop and still capture most of the benefits, lowering lifetime revenue per patient. That's partially offset by a greater patient pool who will be willing to take a medicine if they don't have to commit to perpetual treatment.
Yes that's the same article. It was published online on Nov 29th. It's very disappointing that they propagated the double dose canard. Dew emailed the WSJ reporters requesting a correction but sadly one was never issued: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173320823
However, the WSJ article was definitely not all bad:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C0nSz0crklC/
Can you link to the article you're referring to? I believe it's from 2 weeks ago.
Just read it. Nothing new. His bear thesis is that RVNC will run out of cash before they reach profitability. He also overstates the significance of the Abbvie lawsuit, imo.
The double dose canard refuses to die :(
Mark said they have over 7000 total accounts—which by the way is an increase from the "over 6500" accounts in the Q3 earnings release and call. Does anybody remember what Toby said on the call a couple of weeks ago?
Emannow, remember when Mark says they are doubling back we don't know how many of the now ~4500 accounts that buy RHA only might have passed on Daxxify at the higher price. With price parity there's no reason that most of those accounts—except for any who might be illegally compensated by Allergan/Galderma—shouldn't be buying Daxxify.
Shame she called it Daxtify, but I'll take it!
jbog and RVNCQ, this one's for you:
This injector's Instagram post says it all. She's had Daxxify for a year now. Despite the slow rollout for aesthetics and all the training provided by Revance, it has taken many injectors time to finally accept that Daxxify is unique and requires a different technique to get excellent results. Revance is battling human nature: people are lazy—even smart people. Revance can not afford a repeat of this in therapeutics. The CD rollout is slow and measured as it should be.
The RVNCQ fixation with the slow CD rollout is pathetic.
Unlike in aesthetics where patients are starting to ask for Daxxify by name, there really are no second chances in therapeutics when dealing with insurance payers. Rushing the CD rollout and risking long term penetration just to generate a few extra months of sales on the front-end is not a trade-off I want RVNC to make.
Vin, the article is not about picking stocks, it's simply reporting on how badly small-caps have underperformed the broader market this year. The worst in 25 years in fact.
Many people (myself included) consider such a setup to be a good buying opportunity.
That's correct. Yet Revance has been punished along with other small caps that have floating rate debt. The market is pricing in that Revance will need to offer more debt at higher rates eventually to get to cashflow positive—although the company's official position refutes that.
The article is about small cap stocks generally, of which RVNC is obviously a member.
RVNC sell-off is not just about Revance.
Some might call this a "generational" opportunity:
https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/these-stocks-are-trailing-the-market-by-the-widest-margin-in-25-years-a123b0cd
Daxxify will see increased sales from Botox Day!
It's not in Revance's interest right now to spend any money or effort on a DTC "Daxxify Day" because not enough people know about Daxxify yet and not enough practices offer it. However, when people come in for Botox Day, those practices that actually care about giving their customers the best results will inject Daxxify instead.