Replies to post #101696 on Biotech Values

[jq1234]

Obviously no one here is questioning why it would take 50% of the cash flow for next two to three quarters to pay what amounts to chump change.

We do, but we just don't try to distort it as much as you do. They didn't say it would definitely take 3 qtrs, they said up to 3 qtrs IF NOT SOONER. You obviously want a company like MNTA that had the first one of kind generic approved to give you FIRM guidance on revenue, but you are not going to get it.

[zipjet]

Obviously no one here is questioning why it would take 50% of the cash flow for next two to three quarters to pay what amounts to chump change.

The statement is a straw man argument and misrepresents the reimbursement as "chump change".

The fact is that Wheeler told us that reimbursement of Sandoz could be accomplished in 3Q's or less.

Wheeler did not say the reimbursement total was "chump change". Saying that the sums to be reimbursed are a charge to future revenue and not a liability of MNTA does not say the sum is chump change.

It appears that the reimbursable sum could be $70M (my current assumption) or greater but it may be as low as $40M per a reputable poster.

My current financial model (updated for Shea sales comments) suggests that ~$52.3M could be recovered in 3Q-4Q, 2010. Thus, anything greater than that would take reimbursement into a 3rd consecutive quarter. IF my assumptions are close to reality, then reimbursable sums in the $40-60M certainly justify the Wheeler statement. Wheeler may be making more conservative assumptions.

:-)

ij