One thing I caught when re-listening to the ThinkEquity Conference presentation during the Q&A it was asked where the projected $480K revenue came from. This may have been discussed previously but NP stated it was based on BioVid's projected market penetration of 37-43%....so they went with 40%. 40% of $1.2M = $480K.
....But the $1.2M is based on annual sales of 49,000 patients was the old $24,000 or $25,000 price. The current LD slides have 25,000 patients (reduced from 49,000....or almost 50% less) times current expected price of $120,000 to total $3B.
I'm not trying to say the price is too high or low, that estimated R2+ R5 patient pool is the right size or that market penetration will be greater or less than 40%......the point I am trying to make is that if they price at $70,000, $118,000 or $120,000 the other two number are extremely conservative, meaning likelihood of achieving >$480K in 2020 revenues is extremely likely if approved before end of Q1 (which I believe it will) and they don't fall on their face during launch. Some will argue selling a drug is difficult and I agree to a certain extent, but these are patients with not a lot of other options, so the centers that are having to turn away patients for trials will be able to redirect them to an approved drug (whether on or off-label). I'm sure there is some unknowns such as the distribution partner (recently mentioned by NP) that may take 30-40% and some cushion as to not set the bar too high, or whether they end up licensing and only see a % of the revenue and thus why they haven't changed their $480K estimated 2020 revenue the entire time the price increased almost 5 fold?
I know IZ hasn't been very successful, so maybe I'm off with my assumptions above. I would hope that even if they can generate 50% of their projection that we will be able to pay Samsung, clean up our other liabilities and allow other trials to move ahead full steam.
....But the $1.2M is based on annual sales of 49,000 patients was the old $24,000 or $25,000 price. The current LD slides have 25,000 patients (reduced from 49,000....or almost 50% less) times current expected price of $120,000 to total $3B.
I'm not trying to say the price is too high or low, that estimated R2+ R5 patient pool is the right size or that market penetration will be greater or less than 40%......the point I am trying to make is that if they price at $70,000, $118,000 or $120,000 the other two number are extremely conservative, meaning likelihood of achieving >$480K in 2020 revenues is extremely likely if approved before end of Q1 (which I believe it will) and they don't fall on their face during launch. Some will argue selling a drug is difficult and I agree to a certain extent, but these are patients with not a lot of other options, so the centers that are having to turn away patients for trials will be able to redirect them to an approved drug (whether on or off-label). I'm sure there is some unknowns such as the distribution partner (recently mentioned by NP) that may take 30-40% and some cushion as to not set the bar too high, or whether they end up licensing and only see a % of the revenue and thus why they haven't changed their $480K estimated 2020 revenue the entire time the price increased almost 5 fold?
I know IZ hasn't been very successful, so maybe I'm off with my assumptions above. I would hope that even if they can generate 50% of their projection that we will be able to pay Samsung, clean up our other liabilities and allow other trials to move ahead full steam.
1
