RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Silver liningUnbeliebable really...
I guess MDGL should then be valued at its cash level rather than $1 Billion market cap.
In fact, how can any biotech developing a drug ever get assigned a positive market cap with analysis like that?
Perhaps they should trade at a negative valuation?!?
bfw
SPCEO1 wrote: All those things would be helpful, of course, but what I think they also need is to be covered by analysts who know and understand NASH and who would quickly see the rather stark valuation differences between how the market is valuing THERF's NASH opportunity and that of other similiarly positioned NASH stocks.I will believe the inflection point quartrer in current sales when I see it. I think that growth is more likely to grow at a consistent rate rather than us seeing a meaningful inflection point where growth really takes off. But, in my view, by far the biggest mispricing of THERF's stock is the one related to its NASH opportunity. None of the analysts covering the stock understand NASH or cover NASH stocks, so they are missing the boat entirely. There have been four reports publsihed so far and none has given any new value for the NASH franchise. That is really is stark contrast to similarly placed other NASH stocks and makes little sense. The MAckie analyst actually forecast epak HIV NASH sales of $300 million but still lowered his price target because his valuation methodiolgy simply relies on a present value calculation on 2021 EBITDA, which is going to be lower due to trial costs. This is a quote from his report:
"While launching the proposed Phase III trial would hurt TH’s short-term earnings, we
consider this decision wise as it should create significant long-term value for shareholders.
We are maintaining our HOLD rating and reducing TP from C$9.25 to C$8.15."
With analysis like this, TH's stock does not stand much of a chance.
jfm1330 wrote: If somebody is disappointed with today's CC, I don't know what they were expecting, except label expansion. If you thought in the first place that label expansion was highly unlikely, why would you be disappointed? Minimal knowledge of drug developpment would have allow to know that running a phase III up to approval minimally takes three years, more likely four years. So, again, where is the disappointment coming from? The company just said they were willing to invest 30-40 M$ to do that phase III. What else do you want as a proof of confidence and enthusiasm of the company on the prospects of Egrifta in HIV/NASH? They put their money where their mouth is. What else do you want?
Again. I think the drop in the SP today is a sign that some were expecting some short term benefit that would boost the SP quickly. Today's CC was good, but the company is facing the same problem in the short term. There is skepticism about their capacity to rise sales of Egrifta and Trogarzo. This is the critical area where they need to show real growth. They need a spectacular quarter that would change the perception. They need an inflection point with Trogarzo, and they need a boost from Grinspoon publication and from F4 introduction for Egrifta.