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 correct...
not with multiple Journals looking to be published by either the first, or most prestigious to say they'll publish.
Does its really matter if she was a peripheral figure basking in reflected glory? There is much learning that occurs on the periphery. I would say that having arrived at where she is, at her age and experience, has informed the decisions. Frankly, my questions about Powers are less about the law and more about business.
About this...
EU lawyers themselves are some of the most highly trained and brightest lawyers in the world, so I’m not sure why they would rely on a 30 something with very little patent law experience?
The basis for my nom de' plume is that I am candid. Having seen CEOs up close and in action, when I have an informed opinion I will offer it. At this point, it is limited, as I am only 2-3 months in.
However, broader management experience tells me that calling for a CEO and BOD ouster at a propitious moment is never the answer. It is capitulation, an affirmation that they have done nothing right and a new regime needs to be installed. No way does that appear to be the business condition of NWBO. Like it or not, how NWBO got to the point of awaiting a number of key developments is, without question, a credit to management. Those things do not magically happen; decisions are made and that is what management is paid to do. I can assure anyone reading that the dynamics at play for management in any company are never as they seem to outsiders, even those informed and invested.
You are correct...
only if I were short would I be pushing a fire ceo narrative
The manipulator’s comment blames management, particularly the CEO for almost everything. Does this sound familiar?
“Worst CEO in history.”
“Fire the CEO and everything gets better.”
“CEO raking in millions while we suffer.”
I get the PR on the commercial manufacturing licensing, in fact the whole why not PR all the good stuff, including the filing for approval? Frankly, I am on the side of transparency and wish there was some consistency, but we can see there is not. And you make a good point, feeling they might be "outed".
What do you think?
flip, where some get confused is that the FDA approval process for new and generic drug applications includes a review of the manufacturer's compliance with the CGMPs. Based on what I have seen, MHRA has a risk based inspection subsequent to submission. Is that your understanding?
Thanks for the well researched rebuttal. I appreciate it and admit to suffering from more than a couple of CEOs stating they do not PR submissions. While I understand the tenuousness that some may feel with regulators, a PR on any positive development is always welcomed by investors/stakeholders; particularly with a long history of just getting to the point of submission.
antihama, thanks for that example. And you may be right about MHRA being another animal. I also think that given the vagaries of management, the process of development and the particular novelty of drug/vaccine, it is as that great baseball philosopher once said..."It comes down to two words, it all just depends!" :)
sentiment, just to make sure, I checked the press releases by Merck, J&J, & Pfizer and it comported with what I thought was true...simply filing with a regulator is not something they PR. In fact, I know this to be true of a small pharma firm. The range of PR's include topline data, approvals, conditional approvals, an AdCom recommendation, receiving a priority review, journal pub, acquisitions, partnerships, study results, update on data, and FDA/EMA acceptance of submission. However it appears, they do not PR a submission.
Thank you for paying attention. Not sure why investors would miss such key information passed along by a CEO...but they do!
A remarkable story. Thanks for sharing it...
And to that I will quote Oscar Wilde...
“Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
I am not done with Elite. But I do tire of regurgitated nonsense.
How do you know 85% of Elite's revenue is at risk? How are you sure of the percentage? Why is it at risk? Is it because Nasrat has not told shareholders a bedtime story? Speaking of Nasrat, he told investors what to expect with Dexcel. He even told investors about his plan for having his own commercial business and how he viewed commercialization and distribution. If investors are wandering around without a map, it's not Nasrat's fault. He has given directions. Perhaps his language was unclear to the uninitiated.
Obviously a conflation of the concept of expertise, as it is not relegated to a simple degree or background. Learning does not require staying in one's lane and, in fact, to qualify as an expert under Daubert - thus capable of rendering an expert opinion in a court of law - is more complex than holding a single degree in any area. But I have said that before and I know...I qualified under Daubert.
It is a well known axiom in business that strengths in teams and companies lie in differences not similarities. That is the basis for success in business. We can simply look at the different functions within businesses to know that we need different perspectives, different skills, different experiences. And I bring objective support to my opinion...
https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter
I'm working on my credibility every day.
This must be Friday night follies...
Let’s see if the management is able to convince the street
Well said support of the business reality. Good stuff does not happen without good management. Great science, great strategies + poor management = no sale! This less than articulate point made by a former global executive with a Fortune 50...who gets it.
According to this article, its a bit of both partnerships & acquisitions… https://www.pharmavoice.com/news/pharma-ma-stagnated-in-2021/617162/ …
The pharma industry has shifted its firepower away from acquisitions in the last few years and instead, has focused on partnerships. In 2019, pharma spent 9% of its firepower on alliances and 25% on M&A. In 2021, the script flipped and 9% was spent on M&A while 13% was used for alliances. There’s a common refrain that pharma companies are not investing as much in R&D as they used to. The reality, however, is that the industry is investing more in research in recent years. Pharma’s R&D spend as a percentage of revenue increased from 14% in 2010 to 17.7% in 2021. But the challenge now is that pharma companies are pursuing more complex targets, ultimately leading to higher rates of failure. On top of that, top-line erosion from drugs falling off the patent cliff will often not be adequately offset by new treatments in the R&D pipeline. To fill the innovation gap, larger pharma companies will continue to go outside of their house to find attractive assets.
Just because I am curious, what CC? How long ago? Please a link in support!
LCI dumping Elite isn’t a turn of phrase.
As Nasrat stated, building out our own sales/marketing channel today will be at least 4 product approvals earlier than they had been planning for. Just quoting the boss Nasrat.
Is there a link to read or should I just accept an ungrounded statement? I ask because things get made up.
As for LCI showing Elite the door, that is an interesting turn of phrase. Is this the same LCI that is twisting and selling assets to try to avoid BK and remain on the NYSE?
However, according to Nasrat's words that ARE on a number of CC's, Elite was long thinking about doing its own S&M. Relatedly, we are clear the quota provided by the DEA is for Elite and the retailers buying the Adderall from LCI are buying Elite's. This means Elite will simply find a new distributor; far easier than finding a new buyer.
This is nonsense...
When was the last time Elite was able to hit one of their goals?
To your point...
Clinical trials are about discovery.
Thalidomide was introduced in 1957 and promoted for anxiety, trouble sleeping, "tension", and morning sickness. While it was initially thought to be safe in pregnancy to stem morning sickness, horrific birth defects led to the medication being removed from the market in 1961. Today, Thalidomide is used as a first-line treatment in multiple myeloma in combination with dexamethasone or with melphalan and prednisone to treat acute episodes of erythema nodosum leprosum and for maintenance therapy.
Doc, there "ain't no bad to be had" in the kinetic environment NWBO exists within. And thanks for adding some insight in your response. I still cannot believe my luck. If I had not read about the data from Avisol on SA and followed up on this board, I would not have become convinced that NWBO is the "real deal". This board has been exactly what a board should be about, informing the reader. I am now pushing all the cash I can into the stock.
It would be best to read as many posts by people as you can, before asking questions that can be answered by the reading...
hyperopia, I was not aware that the orphan drug designation would insulate them from the Act's price controls. I appreciate knowing that, thank you.
This is what happens. It is why the shell game works on those focusing on a single point. Single point analysis was the basis for IBM selling off its PC business to Lenovo after projecting a single point for annual sales that was off by a factor of 85X. The converse is why scenario analysis is valuable...it provides a range of options, typically 3-5. Just as I did with the DCF on NWBO.
The question...
Where is that template?
Doc, I appreciate the lengthy explanation, thank you. However...
but this has all been painstakingly dealt with by investors and NWBO alike over the last 7 years.
flip, if memory serves, you indicated you had interest in policy. Have you seen this?
Based on research out of the University of Chicago (Philipson, et al), it was found that some cancer patients would miss out on treatment due to the Inflation Reduction Act's price controls.
HopeFTF3, the reason why I did the DCF analysis was precisely because the $15 and $7 share price are accompanied by nothing short of ungrounded opinions. Agree or not with the DCF process and outcome, at least it was grounded.
Just so we are clear, there are five elements used for DCF analysis (independent variables). Earnings per share, which NWBO does not have. Annual earnings growth rate, which NWBO does not have. The expected time frame for that growth to occur, again, something NWBO does not have. The period of time beyond that and the expected rate that is a prospective view that is generally the most difficult if not contentious of the variables. It is with that I did the DCF and used Keytruda's actual revenues...and here is the BIG thing...I used them as if a single company's revenues. Where the disconnect comes is in not understanding that distinction.
SO, IFF (a math term), a DCF was done on Merck today, it would take into consideration the full growth picture of Merck and, since it is about revenue growth percentages not dollars, Merck's share price numbers would be very different, in no small part because the calculation begins with its earnings per share, a known data point.
OBTW: the fifth piece on the DCF is the discount rate. Generally it falls between 10-11% (most "hand" calculations use 10%). And here is where it gets confusing, the "trick" in plugging in the numbers is that the growth rate percentage cannot exceed the discount rate.
With that, I am on this board to learn and inform where possible, not improve analytical abilities. That I get paid to do. Rather, I did this specific analysis for free because I tire of anecdotal analogies that inferred, implied or suggested NWBOs value based on something tied to another company. It is also why I provided the template, open kimono!
Yes, my suggestion is to read posts of others who have been involved with NWBO for years and have the appropriate backgrounds to anchor their discussions in more than mere opinions. Here is a place to start...https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profile.aspx?user=822788
What happens in many cases of analysis is that one number gets remembered, usually it is the outlier. That is called the Anchoring Effect - a cognitive bias whereby an individual's decisions are influenced by a particular reference point or 'anchor'. As a result, what was overlooked was the conservative range I initially provided - $21.29 to $64.77. Anchor on that.
No hope, just math...and, for the uninitiated...a DCF does not care about the number of shares or the market cap. That is why it is not the most definitive means of valuation. Someone should ask someone about the E/V analysis done and the numbers. That was the better analysis, more complete.
Keep up, I did.
It is not my desire to get caught up in internecine discussions when the purpose was to be illustrative and transcend the anecdotal.
Sounds like operating error to me...
I loved the diamond in the rough analogy...PERFECT!