Replies to post #151110 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

No offense guys, but I have had this same conversation with some of the board members when Ariad's MC was 750 mil. You, Dew and JQ all felt Ariad was overvalued at that point as well.

Congrats. That doesn't mean it will be different this time though.

However, on the other side of the bet, Ponatinib could very well become a mega blockbuster and that $100 price tag could be achieved in due time.

So you think ponatinib alone may ultimately support a share price 5x current level, or about a $20B market cap? I'm sorry but that sounds pretty silly to me. Show some specific numbers to back up that kind of estimate.

Ponatinib is a better drug than Gleevec (generic or not), Tasigna and Sprycel. You kow what the KOL's woud like to see in the front line and now you are starting to hear of a ground swell of rumblings of oncologist's discussing it as well. Stifel Nicolaus's price raise discussed this very thing the other day.

I'm quite sure ponatinib is a better drug than Gleevec. But that's not the question. The question is whether or not ponatinib is significantly better enough, and has a market opportunity large enough, to merit substantial revenues down the road to not just support the current valuation but provide meaningful upside to the current $4B market cap.

Point is that this caries a substantial amount of risk for a very substantial payoff.

I disagree about the 'very substantial' payoff. Is there upside? Sure. I'm just quite skeptical of there being 'very substantial' upside.

Edit: 113 is a huge wild card and another discussion entirely.

I would love to see some sales estimates out there for 113 down the road but I'm still very skeptical that either ponatinib or 113 alone, or collectively, offer massive upside to the current $4B market cap. I have no skin in the game though and hope for continued success for you ARIA longs. Just count me in the very skeptical camp. ; )