Roger, I believe Brad is best qualified to discuss that one. What I know, I know from his previous posts on analysts estimates. I trust if I misrepresent the content of those previous posts, or I extrapolate too far from the spirit of what he posted, he will correct me.
I think that the analysts are aware of the difficulty here and have therefore based their estimates on conservative assumptions and have, as a result, come up with what may prove to be conservative estimates.
I do believe that IDEC has given some rough estimations of what they would be asking for the drug and these were taken into consideration.
About supply and demand, some assumptions can be made with respect to the number of potentially eligable NHL patients out there and some guess could be made as to the level of enthusiasm on the part of physicians for the therapy which, all indications have shown to be high. If IDEC has made suggested prices available (as I believe they have for C2B8) An analyst, say... Shakur Basu who has a 44 12 month target for IDEC, certainly has taken all these and many other factors into consideration.
My basic feeling is that the figures where arrived at conservatively for the very reason that there are uncertainties, many of which you cite. The bottom line could be that, if anything, the estimates may prove to be low, especially if we begin to see further strong clinicals and eventual strong demand and market share for CE9.1 when that day comes.
Again, Brad can give a much better answer to this question as I am just putting together from memory what I recall from previous posts, the most important of which were his to begin with.
BENNNETT |
