The Pathway to $ 9 !? - CorrectedApologies (one key point corrected, clarificaitons & spelling). No change to targets.
Using new Sept Presentation facts and figures....
Anticipated Tigris Interim Enrollment - re-iterated (in the presentation) as Q4 2021 !
Note: this is associated with the next Baxter milestone Payment (another cash infusion by the multi-billion $ Distribution partner)
Targeteded Market penetration thru partnership with Baxter (35-45%) (per presentation)
Let's use 40% (the midpoint)
EBITDA (EAA & PMX based on $ 7500/column market price - per presentation)
$197.50M USD (midpoint of 35% $ 173M and 45% $ 222M USD - EBITDA's are per presentation)
(Note: EBITDA's seem to use a 120k potential patient target, yet an updated "competitor" comparison seems to suggest 150k potential patient market. perhaps allowing for growth in Sepsis and Covid affect on # Sepsis cases?) Needless to say, if factored into EBITDA calcs, this could represent another 25% upside to the share price (PMX portion only)?
fully diluted pro-forma # shares 275M (per presentation)
EBITDA multiple (say 10X - highly conservative for an FDA approved medical device co., with limited competition in a given space, and high barriers to entry)
Estimated MC based on EBITDA multiple = $ 197M USD X 10 = $ 1,975M
Per share valuation estimate:
$ 7.18 USD (= $1,975M / 275M shares)
or approx.
$ 9 CAD (using todays FX rates). PMX & EAA (NA) only. note: EAA is really worldwide and can/should be used ww (incl. in USA) to triage patients with Sepsis symptooms, to eliminate possibiltiy of endotoxemia (not factored into the presentation, that I can see) Zero valuation for Dialco.
Note...(1) no discount factor used, (2) if you thought PMX had a 3.6% chance of success in the "confirmatory" Phase 3B Trial, you might value it at say $ 0.33 today (3.6% x $ 9). i.e. this assumes a 96.4% likellihood of a future valuation of $ 0, and a 3.6% likelihood of $ 9 valuation. (of course this also assumes an efficieint market and promotion - neither of which seems to be very evident)
Personally, I prefer to use a 50-60% likelihood of success, given societal need for a new Sepsis solution, stated early results, Meta-analyses of various PMX studies/Trials over 2 decades, non culturable bacteria subgroup, other new RWE, likely CV-19 impact on go forward Sepsis stats, nature of the Trial (Bayesian, Open Label, 2:1), Kellum's commitment to the co., etc.
Please critique my math at your leisure.
MM