Replies to post #117113 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[JG36]

I was using gross revenues (sales), not earnings. So P/E ratios are irrelevant. I used Pfitzer as an example. It is a major pharmaceutical, that unlike NNVC, has a broad spectrum of different drugs and actually owns the patents on many of them. Pfitzer has 47.92B in revenue and a market cap of 188.8B. So it is valued at 4 times revenues. NNVC can only hope to be valued as richly when it has only a single drug out the door, given that it doesn't own its own intellectual property.

[bloomvest]

I was thinking about $5,000 a share.
We all know the world is waiting for Diwan and Seymour's great invention. This is bigger then Lazer Bond (as seen on TV)

[Rawnoc]

What bullshit. I prefer reality:

(1) It's reckless to assume that every single man, woman, and child will buy the drug at full value rather than something based in reality that a relatively much smaller percentage of the people.

(2) It's reckless to refer to $45 million in mythical sales as net income -- $0 allocated for cost of the drugs or overhead which are already significant.

(3) P/E ratios are a statistic based on EARNINGS -- you applied a mythical pie-in-the-sky sales figure in place of earnings.

(4) If we ran with the laughable ASSumption that everybody with a disease got cured by NNVC, there would be little if anybody left the following year to cure! The 45,000 people per year who get the disease need to get it from UNCURED people for the most part otherwise the numbers diminish to zero.

Better ASSumption, yet still wildly optimistic, would be say 25% take the drug so there are still plenty of new and uncured people to keep it spreading. Your $45 million goes down to $12.5 million and barely any profit if any at all. It would realistically bring the company a lot closer to break-even at best which is great but still no earnings level to even justify the current share price $12 to $100 ridiculous targets.