Replies to post #89283 on 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.

[mouton29]

Re: Oppenheimer's sleazy word games <<This seemingly contradicts the flyonthewall blurb in #msg-45511006, which says, “Oppenheimer believes that the [MNTA’s] M-enoxaparin may be the sole generic treatment approved.” Most people would interpret the flyonthewall statement to mean that Oppenheimer thought a sole generic approval was the most likely outcome, but Oppenheimer never actually said that. I think Oppenheimer is sleazily playing word games to make it look like they were right regardless of what the FDA decides to do.>>

Do you know what Oppenheimer actually said? Or is flyonthewall a definitive source that merely quotes from analyst reports accurately?

FWIW, my interpretation of the flyonthewall summary, given the second sentence quoted below, is that all Oppenheimer is saying, MNTA's version MIGHT be the sole approval, in which case the stock skyrockets, or it might be one of two approved, in which case the stock still goes up.

"After meeting with Momenta's management, Oppenheimer believes that the company's M-enoxaparin may be the sole generic treatment approved. The firm thinks the stock is undervalued even if M-enoxaparin is one of multiple generics approved, and it predicts that the stock will increase dramatically if it is the sole generic. The firm maintains an Outperform rating. "

By the way, back in November, an article Floblu14 posted stated that an Oppenheimer analyst "thinks the agency will approve Momenta's version, along with a competing generic made by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. " See http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=43751535

[genisi]

On Oppenheimer's word games - bear in mind that Oppenheimer has an outperform rating for TEVA shares as well.