Replies to post #83852 on Biotech Values

[ThomasS]

MNTA: Those "contributions" were likely quotes taken from transcripts produced by an Indian outsource.

[DewDiligence]

I did note what seemed me an unusual number of typos -- affect for effect, precedence for precedent and several sentences with missing or extra words.

Those are not typos—they’re usage errors, which is something altogether different.

[DewDiligence]

Two more reasons to question DB’s report on MNTA:

1. Robyn Karnauskas (the lead Deutsche Bank analyst assigned to MNTA) says MNTA is worth $18/sh without any contribution from Lovenox while also arguing that the share price will fall to $6 or less if the FDA approves more than one generic Lovenox (which would, of course, provide MNTA some economic value attributable to Lovenox). This is so bizarre that I need to state it again: Karnauskas says MNTA would be worth $18/sh if the Lovenox program did not even exist, but she expects the share price to fall to $6 if the FDA approves multiple generics. A real head-scratcher!

2. Karnauskas stated that MNTA uses enzymatic cleavage to make generic Lovenox from bulk heparin, but they do not—they use only chemical (i.e. small-molecule) cleavage. This seemingly small distinction is sufficiently relevant that a scientist from MNTA corrected Karnauskas during a recent CC on exactly this point. Inasmuch as Karnauskas is a professional analyst who has made a big deal to the investment community about her “DD” on MNTA, I would expect her to know a detail such as this; I knew this two years ago and I’m just an investor: #msg-24438508 :-)

FWIW