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.
This is precisely my point. The market is irrational undervaluing MNTA on the mere threat of a impending lawsuit. A lawsuit would guarantee MNTA 5-$6 EPS as the sole generic for at least 2-3 years, because the FDA will not get scared into approving TEVA's generic. The stock was trading at $16.5 a few weeks before approval, now under a sole generic (best case) scenario (with hundreds of millions pouring in) its trading at $15... huh... that smells fishy to me.
A 10 year old would understand that, but people on this board are telling me the the market is pricing MNTA efficiently. That defies common sense.
Thanks for the feedback, but I respectfully disagree and think you are being narrow-minded. Would you profess to the general public that the stock market is rational or fair? If you wouldn't then the corollary is that the market has the propensity to be undermined by conspiracies (A conspiracy is an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.) Manipulating the price of a stock (short-term or long-term) to reflect what a small handful of powerful players want perverts reality, and i very much believe that is happening regularly in the stock market (with key equities). Why do you think shorts have fought so hard (and successfully) to keep their positions "secret" ?(longs are required to disclose their positions on a quarterly basis, but shorts are allowed to stay in the shadows and operate with relative impunity).
Not sure why you have a problem with my use of the word massive. The use of the word massive in this context is appropriate.... when a stock gets 20% of its float shorted in several short weeks, that is the definition of massive.
Lets look at the facts: MNTA's stock is trading at a P/E of 3. This is not a subjective opinion (what i think), it is an objective fact. 50% of all shares traded on any given day in the last few weeks are likely short (see http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readreplies.aspx?subjectid=54349&nonstock=False&msgid=26950213). TEVA has been caught deceiving the public re: generic lovenox approval (e.g. claiming they would get approval in August (never happened) and then claiming they would get approval by end of year on a CC while telling the WSJ they are stuck in bureaucratic limbo). Either someone has publicly undisclosed information, or they (the shorts) are manipulating the PPS for an ulterior motive. In any case, the above are perfect examples of a "conspiracy"... simple as that.
Interesting, so a market cap of ~$550 million for SQNM and ~$675 million for MNTA is relatively efficient? I think not. You do realize MNTA traded in the low $30's a few years ago (Before they had approval for mL) They now have approval, are printing money, and the stock trades below pre-approval levels. (Someone is shorting the heck out of the stock, to me that sounds like a conspiracy, or someone has some information that is not publicly disclosed --- btw, shorting on a massive scale also hit SQNM just before the company announced "data mishandling" and fired a bunch of its executives).
I respect rationality, but folks often get caught up in the "spirit" of the system (the naive amongst us), and forget that a small handful have all the influence.
If you don't get my point after the unjustified beating MNTA has endured the last few weeks, than you will forever be convinced that the system is "uncompromised" ...
Inefficiency = Irrationality.
MNTA Stock Price:
There are a variety of posters (I won't name personally) who over time, have ridiculed those who assert "conspiracy theories" to explain bizarre stock (PPS) performance. The situation with MNTA is a slap in the face of anyone who claims that the market is an efficient vehicle for pricing securities. It is an absolute joke.
Very interesting. Short position is rather obscene. 20% of the shares short, pretty balsy if you ask me.
I think that the challenge will come after MNTA announces their FoB partnership in late November/early December.
Are you suggesting that there might be a existing conflict of interest that prompted him to insinuate conflicts of interest at the FDA? :)
Glad you kept a copy -- it was pulled from GAO website when i checked 20 minutes ago.
I read the full GAO report this morning. They pulled the report from the GAO website thereafter. The FDA was not apologetic for retaining MNTA scientists. That being said, they did admit that they could have taken steps to reduce perceived "conflicts of interest." A few practical steps have been implemented since October 15th -- more transparency/notice to the public when consultants are retained with potential conflicts of interest, more communication within the agency to assess the "risks", etc... All in all the FDA was a strong advocate of MNTA and did not relent in defending their right to retain whomever they please when it comes to managing public health emergencies.
In a emergency situation (like the Heparin crisis), the FDA P&P manual allows the agency to accept gratuitous services. MNTA did not receive consideration, per se, for the services they provided, but it did provide the company an opportunity to showcase their sophisticated technology and publish a major article.
Doubtful. Biting the hand that feeds you (especially so close to meal time) is wreckless. TEVA is clearly frustrated and lashing out. (Interestingly enough, they are acting exactly the same way Amphastar acted as the ugly truth of a thumbs down on their generic approval became evident) Attacking the FDA -- alleging bias, alleging favoritism, alleging lack of notice, etc...
Lets hope that blowback hurts TEVA. Some in the marketplace, may perceive this strategy on the part of TEVA as a sign of weakness and defeat.
Indeed. If Joe Barton wants to investigate someone, it should be TEVA. How can they claim that FDA approval is imminent in a public forum (last week) while privately complaining (whining) about FDA bias and the "bureaucratic limbo" of their application.
Smells like deception and obfuscation of the truth to me. Market will come to its senses sooner or later.
My speculation - TEVA HQ (Israel) and Teva NA (North America) are in disagreement on how to handle the tL application "limbo" at this point. I suspect TEVA HQ is optimistic that putting the screws on the FDA (privately and publicy) will get them approval, while the guys in North America are more pessimistic and would consider undermining MNTA (at least in the short term) a small victory. (With the Momenta Copaxone threat on the horizon, this makes a lot of sense)
The truth about TEVA's two-faces was bound to come out sooner or later ... this is the first major crack to emerge in TEVA's "story." (major = a blatant contradiction in the way the company is managing tL approval expectations). They were being so polite to the FDA a few weeks ago... lol, what happened.
I think they are referring to the notice they received last week that they are 5 years behind MNTA in obtaining approval. Whoops ... :)
Congress has minimal influence in this process... FDA has significant deference in these matters. Interesting that TEVA decided to go public in this way... I suspect the behind the scenes intimidation tactics by the Joe Barton's of the world yielded no results so they felt they had no choice. Didn't TEVA learn from Amphastar/Watson ... the FDA doesn't like being bullied into approvals. This smells of desperation.
This may be the catalyst we have been looking for to shed the TEVA overhang.
Whoops ... PR blunder. Inconsistent message to the market. Two-faced TEVA.
Very interesting action on the chart for MNTA. Volume dry & converging trend lines. My guess: we'll make a significant move higher or lower (2+ point move) within the next 2 weeks.
http://tinypic.com/r/qo98ua/7
RockRat ... TEVA has made many assertions over the last 3+ months that are extremely suspect. Bill Marth has been spinning facts for years -- remember the crazy FDA/TEVA tL "labeling" discussions he referenced in 2009? Other examples:
(1) In July 2010, after MNTA received approval, TEVA mgmt. came out in a CC and explicitly asserted their belief that they would be approved in August (because they submitted their immunogenecity data late -- crazy assertion for a senior executive to make, since it was complete speculation)
(2) TEVA released PR hours after MNTA received approval arguing that they have met all the criteria and expect approval soon -- very strange (some definite PR/marketing strategy at play there).
(3) TEVA management is now asserting that the FDA verbally confirmed they (TEVA) have achieved bioequivalence with their tL generic -- sounds fishy to me.
(4) TEVA's application has been sitting out there for a long time (far longer than MNTA's) ... if TEVA were close to obtaining approval (w/in 12 months), i suspect that the FDA would have consolidated approvals.
There are so many other bizarre statements, when i have more energy, i will post them. TEVA is good, but they are not saints.
Bill Marth -- in 2009 he muddled his way through a generic lovenox analyst question, and stated that Teva was on track and doing the usual -- you know, responding to FDA "labeling" questions around tL. (huh???) I've sliced and diced his comments, and have come to the conclusion that he (1) was lying, (2) was spinning faster than the gravitron, or (3) is an idiot. It may be all of the above.
I do look forward to the next excuse. They have been pretty aggressive in providing "color" around the FDA dialogue with the public at large. I suspect they will deflect -- "we won't provide any more information than what we previously provided ... we remain optimistic that approval may come in the near future" (~2015 or 2020 -- may be near term for some folks who are trying to build a dynasty)
MNTA: I do wonder, how many shares the collective iHub and SI board (passive and active) hold in the company. I wouldn't be surprised if we collectively own 1 or 2 percentage points.
I don't know, P/E of 2-3 probably reflects the "lemonade stand" industry.
Welcome back to the 15's... didn't think we'd be back here so quickly. Well lets hope they cap her a few more days... i'd like to pick up some more shares in my IRA.
I've been selling like mad. Someone told me they are only going to earn $5.85 cents next year. That can't even buy you a Spicy Chicken Sandwhich meal at Jack in the box. They need to step up their game. :)
Dew, pure obfuscation of the facts.
Jbog, why deflect to a comment about Dew and "20% COGS"? facts speak for themselves.... MNTA paid back all development expenses, had they not paid development expenses this quarter they would have generated $1.46 in earning per share.
Annualized = $5.85 bucks per share. (The high analyst estimate for 2011 EPS is $3.75 and the average EPS for 2011 is $1.39). The COGS are irrelevant at this point, we have a rough idea of the EPS for 2011 and the only material question (wrt to the PPS), is whether TEVA will obtain approval within the next year or two.
At this rate, a buyout is likely. One wonders....
i can't help but feel that there is something else going on. it just doesn't make sense. market is inefficient -- but this is just nuts. TEVA overhang alone, doesn't strike me as the sole possible cause.
That is still monstrous ... 70 cents + 76 cents = 1.46 cents per share. :)
MNTA: Don't worry about the PPS ... at this rate, the co. will issue a dividend in 2 years. [ they'll have ~600 million in the bank by that time -- about the size of the whole market cap. :) ]
MNTA: These guys are printing dollar bills faster than North Korea. :) Congrats all.
lol... good one.
Excellent analysis.
Thanks for your perspective. That makes a lot of sense.
Dew,
"Sanofi-aventis now expects business EPS1 growth for 2010 to be between 0% and 2% versus 20094 business EPS, at constant exchange rates and barring major unforeseen adverse events. This guidance takes into account generic competition for Ambien CR® in the U.S., possible entry of generics of Taxotere® in the U.S. and the E.U. and further erosion of Lovenox® sales in the U.S."
As I read the statement, on its face, SNY expects "further erosion of Lovenox sales" ...
See Sanofi Quarterly Earnings Release (see page 1 http://en.sanofi-aventis.com/binaries/20101028_Q3_2010_en_tcm28-29489.pdf)
Thanks for the clarification. It is also interesting that Sanofi was explicit in asserting their expectation for further erosion in the coming quarters as a result of the new generic competition. This is to some extent shocking, since MNTA/Sandoz control ~half the Lovenox market in the 3Q. How much more are they expecting to lose? Further erosion of SNY's Lovenox is a major positive for MNTA.
>> we don't expect other generic launches in the U.S. for several quarters, which should allow Sanofi to hold on to close to 20% of its market share in the near term because of limited competitors.
Perhaps he is thinking of this as a typical generic launch.
IJ, it is interesting that the analyst made this comment. Sanofi also asserted an expectation of "further erosion" of lovenox revenue as a result of generic competition. Perhaps mL will not split the market so evenly with Lovenox... that being said, sanofi is sending all the signals that it is not looking to launch a AG, so long as there are only two competing products.
i love how the analyst estimates skyrocketed in 2 weeks and the stock barely moved. lol ... crazy.
SNY US Lovenox Sales Down 47.3%
"Third-quarter net sales of Lovenox® were €589 million, down 26.1%. Sales declined 47.3% (€255 million) in the U.S. due to the entry of a generic competitor at the end of July. Outside the U.S., Lovenox® sales reached €334 million (representing 56.7% of Lovenox sales in the third quarter), an increase of 4.6%, supported by the
Emerging Markets (up 8.3% to €129 million) where Latin America and Eastern Europe demonstrated double digit growth. Year-to-date Lovenox® sales reached €2,224 million (-5.1%), 45.8% of which was generated outside the U.S. (€1,018 million, up 7.6%)."
http://en.sanofi-aventis.com/binaries/20101028_Q3_2010_en_tcm28-29489.pdf
Note: I am trying to reconcile this with my previous post, it appears MNTA's numbers may be bigger next quarter than i previously posted.
With this information, we can more effectively extrapolate mL sales next quarter (i.e. adjust for the channel stocking and the fact that mL was only approved for 69 days of the third quarter).
If we assume for a moment that true mL revenue(i.e. excluding the channel stocking) were ~$210 million for the 69 days of Q3 approval, we can extrapolate that a full quarters worth of sales would have generated ~$274M USD in revenue.
Note: It may be inaccurate to assume that SNY's loss of $210MM in Lovenox revenue would translate directly to $210MM in revenue gained for Sandoz/MNTA. It may be safer to subscribe a 10% cushion to adjust for discounts and other factors. Still that would result in ~$250MM in sales for Q4 ... not too shabby.