Replies to post #215196 on Biotech Values

[10nisman]

RVNC—Sell–side analysts are doing harm, IMO, by pushing so hard on 24-week duration, which is setting an unduly high bar by the pending SAKURA-1/2 data release.

I prefer having sell-side analysts setting the bar too high. This way RVNC doesn't spike on positive 20-22 week duration results and we can accumulate more at current levels.

[biotech_researcher]

“RVNC—Sell–side analysts are doing harm, IMO, by pushing so hard on 24-week duration, which is setting an unduly high bar by the pending SAKURA-1/2 data release. “

I disagree. Dan Browne is setting the bar too high. All he could utter durning the Q3 results was the six months duration. He alone sets the bar for the analysts. My only hopeful conclusion is they expect durations beyond 6 months for some patients.

[Bickema]

RVNC—Sell–side analysts are doing harm, IMO, by pushing so hard on 24-week duration, which is setting an unduly high bar by the pending SAKURA-1/2 data release.

What these analysts should be saying is that a purer, safer, more modern toxin that lasts somewhat longer than Botox will be a big-selling global product.

Dew I couldn't agree more, just getting a comparable product in terms of efficacy and safety to the finish line, should be plenty enough for RVNC to take a small but meaningful share of the botox market. Just something like 8-10% market share would produce great returns for investors.

The medical aesthetics space is in full bloom, the suitors for RVNC are endless whether it be someone already in the space or a large company looking to get in.