InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

ak777

02/18/20 4:36 PM

#246997 RE: Whalatane #246979

Kiwi - lets see now:

1. 100% price maintenance even if loss of exclusivity.

2. loss of exclusivity only if opponent winning decision akin to lottery ticket.

3. a bio that is completely de-risked from a clinical trials perspective (this is huge from a bio investor perspective);

4. all in all, an excellent launch - this is where so many new approvals fail & SP begins to disappoint/flounder; there is no doubt in my mind that some of the blood loss past 8 weeks is due to CONCERNS (reflexive for so many bio investors) re. commercial success. We have seen this problem over and over again for so many bios following successful FDA approval. Shorts were counting on this, tutes anticipating a temp dip perhaps. These reflexive concerns will be shot to pieces re. AMRN as year progresses, note the CITI comments today. JT famous for under-promising here.

5. Incremental profitability to rise longer term due to pricing flexibility given low starting point.

What the hell isn't there to like here for this bio? that FDA will pull a stop because there was a new safety concern?!! 2.5BB revs for 2024 being mentioned in US? so then 5BB min for global; even if GIA, this should support market cap of 12BB+. BO a bonus in our set of scenarios here, I don't even need to go there.....
icon url

Jeffkad

02/18/20 4:52 PM

#247002 RE: Whalatane #246979

“In a worst case scenario of Vascepa losing exclusivity immediately, we believe pricing would be almost 100% maintained,” Beatty argued.
I believe he made this supposition based on V compared to the price of generic Lovaza. If true, he’s an idiot. Regardless, there is no way the initial reaction to patent loss would be negligible.
icon url

jfmcrr

02/18/20 6:03 PM

#247012 RE: Whalatane #246979

Beatty also said investors are worrying too much about the risk posed by patent litigation. “In a worst case scenario of Vascepa losing exclusivity immediately, we believe pricing would be almost 100% maintained,” Beatty argued.




Some of the posts I saw appeared to confuse "pricing" regarding product pricing, "V" with share pricing "Bid/Ask".

Losing the case will be "buying opportunity" to test the faithful.