I'm going to divide up my answers to your post David, waiting for the coffee to set in.
I respect that others have done their homework. I'm paid to do it well, I'm trained to do it well, and I have the correct background. It's my nature to repeat the work of others. :-)
One more smilie for the playful side behind the stubborn stance. :-)
You think my 7-8 target is low? I think I made it pretty clear.... that's what I expect right now, immediately...... on no further news. I do not mean to show a lack of respect for the due-dillignece done by others contributing to this thread. However, I've been associated with this industry since it's inception. I make the easy money by identifying market caps that have gotten out of whack with business plans. MOGN is trading near or below a cap with companies like COCN, VRGN, CYPR, ANRG, TGEN, CTRX, PARS, CPRO, NEOT, CBST, LJPC and (gasp) GERN that do not have existing sales or sales forces and that are early in testing of unproven modalities or have given away the farm or have become chronic failures.
I respect the efforts of others here, and do not mean to show a lack of respect for the dilligent analysis done to date. I've spent a large portion of the past week researching the company. I have grown comfortable with the wisdom of niche marketing, backed up by the work with acylfulvenes. The target of $7-8 is based on healthy skepticism regarding FDA and Sjogren's, and represents nothing other than respect for the efforts of the company, the orphan designation for Salagen, their completed phase III for Sjogren's, and their patents (including those that are acylfulvene-related from UCSD/McMorris). I've been to FDA to make and coordinate presentations, and I believe that the healthy skepticism keeps my portfolio in growth mode.
So..... given your FDA prediction, let's return to an analysis of Sjogren's-associated sales in the U.S. and determine a reasonable target beyond $7-8. I asked earlier if the thread contained such an analysis, and the answer was "no". At first blush, we came up with the answer that MOGN looked like a "multi-bagger", without the acylfulvenes.
More response later, after coffee. I also have an article to edit today (angiogenesis, to be published at Microsoft Investor), so I may not be answering until much later. I didn't "get" your human/mice equivalency ratio question, and I need to go back and review your post.
Cheers! Rick |
