Replies to post #108556 on Biotech Values

[DragonBits]

dew, that seems the most plausible reason for TEVA position on Lovenox, thanks for sharing your thinking on this.

[ilpapa]

And the next question is whether browbeating the FDA in this way is likely to put its back up or cause it to retreat into bureaucratic inertia.
Inertia on Copaxone is all Teva needs.

[mcbio]

Why do baseball managers come out on the field to argue calls with the umpires when they know there is zero chance of getting the calls reversed? The answer is: they are arguing in order to influence the next call.

Dew, that's one awesome analogy and I think you're spot on here. At least I hope so! ; )

[Biowatch]

Sounds like a seventh inning stretch about TEVA's motives.

[DewDiligence]

MNTA/TEVA: This post is an adjunct to the discussion in #msg-56487255
where I said that Teva was behaving like a baseball manager. The chart below
shows the guidance Teva presented to the investment community in Jan 2010,
which calls for Teva’s sales and profits to roughly double between now and
2015 and for the net (after-tax) profit margin to remain level in the low 20s.



If NVS/MNTA obtain FDA approval for generic Copaxone in the next couple
of years, Teva might still meet its 2015 sales goal through acquisitions;
however, because US Copaxone has a sky-high profit margin and contributes
a disproportionate share of Teva’s overall profits, there is no realistic way
Teva can meet its 2015 profit and EPS goals with a generic Copaxone
in the US market.

When Teva made its aggressive 2015 sales and profits forecasts in Jan 12010,
there was no indication that the FDA would soon validate MNTA’s technology
by approving generic Lovenox. Now that the FDA has validated MNTA’s
technology, Teva’s executives probably wish they could retract the 2015
guidance and start over. Since they can’t do that, Teva’s plan B is to behave
like a baseball manager.