News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 257580
Next 10
Followers 843
Posts 122988
Boards Moderated 9
Alias Born 09/05/2002

Re: dewophile post# 77975

Saturday, 05/16/2009 6:15:51 PM

Saturday, May 16, 2009 6:15:51 PM

Post# of 257580

MNTA: i think the price dynamics typically seen when generics are introduced may not hold when there is a high barrier to entry and only 2 drugs are competing for market share. that is, i think SNY will fight for market share and pricing won't be static.

Mathematically, the single-generic case has an infinite number of outcomes that are functionally equivalent for MNTA investors to the one I posited; e.g. no price discounting and the NVS/MNTA generic garnering a 60% market share produces the same $1.5B of annual sales for NVS/MNTA as under my set of assumptions.

I think a more conservative assumption is 50% market share when steady state is reached - likely at a price point close to the discount you assume.

This set of assumptions results in annual sales of about $940M for both the NVS/MNTA generic and SNY’s branded product, which is a steep margin reduction for SNY to take on the branded product. Typically, the vendor of the branded drug maintains full pricing; the thinking is that docs who suffer from Generic Phobia will continue to use the branded product regardless, so why give them a price break? Thus, I think a more likely scenario that results in the same NVS/MNTA $940M number as in your scenario is the one in which SNY launches an authorized generic.

In considering the outcome that includes an AG from SNY, I previously arrived at a 40% haircut for the NVS/MNTA sales relative to the best case (#msg-33892399), which is arithmetically identical to your scenario above. Moreover, I think an AG launch by SNY is quite likely for the reasons laid out by BI in #msg-34006751. Thus, I would submit that you and I are on the same wavelength about the likely bottom-line result for NVS/MNTA, although we arrived at the answer by somewhat different routes.

it may boil down to COGS. neither [SNY or NVS] are completely vertically integrated, but SNY initially may have an advantage based on scale.

On this narrow point, I disagree. NVS is on record that they have the capacity to supply 100% of the US Lovenox market. There’s a reason why NVS has contracted with four different Chinese suppliers of bulk heparin :- )


“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today