Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Re: MNTA (multiple Lovenox generics)

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this [multiple Lovenox generics] would lead to a royalty to MNTA vs. a profit-split, we believe approval would validate MNTA's technology…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dew] I don’t agree. To the contrary, I think multiple generic-Lovenox approvals would imply that: i) MNTA’s technology is not unique and indispensible; or ii) the FDA is setting the bar relatively low for the “sameness” of a complex generic, making MNTA’s technology less consequential.

I agree with you as well on these points.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe [FDA approval of multiple Lovenox generics] would lead to appreciation, and believe sole approval of M-enoxaparin, which would drive even more substantial upside, is also possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dew] Opinions are all over the map on whether FDA approval of multiple Lovenox generics would make MNTA’s share price go up or go down in the short run, but I don’t consider it a bullish scenario in the long run. Oppenheimer’s saying that approval of a sole generic is “possible” adds no information and is part of the word games I referred to above, IMO.

I'm in the camp that a multiple Lovenox generics scenario would still result in a rise in MNTA's share price in the short run. Although I agree that such a scenario essentially renders MNTA's technology less consequential or unique and therefore clearly limits the upside, MNTA would still be receiving what should be quite material revenues in the very short-term. Those revenues will have to be accounted for in the valuation of the stock and I just don't necessarily believe that the current valuation accounts for the likelihood of such revenues in a multiple Lovenox generics scenario. All IMHO of course and I'm biased because I'm long.