Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : VVUS: VIVUS INC. (NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cacaito who wrote (3670)	12/15/1997 12:41:00 AM
From: Andreas Samson	Respond to of 23519

>>The problem is production, If management reassure me full production of both NJ plants for mid 98 I am a holder, if earlier I am a buyer. But I do not believe them.<< I took notes during the CC. One of the first questions asked was; 'when would they be able to return to 3Q production levels?' The answer was mid-January. Anyone else have different notes?

To: Cacaito who wrote (3670)	12/15/1997 2:38:00 AM
From: Dermot Dunne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23519

"But I do not believe them" Nor do I. I was disappointed with the conference call; it's no consolation that the analysts were a sorrier lot than management. The CEO came across too breathless and defensive; he has been described as sincere - yes, he sincerely wished it were February 1998. He impressed me as good ole boy shrewd but unintelligent. He displayed a distressing lack of familiarity with industry norms - whatever they may be - for wholesalers' inventory days. Curiously, he asserted that there was product on backorder, and then refused to give even an estimate. On more than one occasion he didn't have the figures right now and insisted on fobbing off the questioners with percentages of guesstimates, before iterating again through his grand marketing plan. Now the manufacturing guy, though obviously very solid, seemed to have been primed to obfuscate and stonewall. He ruined an otherwise reasonable explanation by talking down to us. Again, he raised unnecessary hares, for example citing delays in getting results from third party labs. So, the question is no longer "what happened" and why weren't we told" The question is what are they concealing? This is pure conjecture, from the depths of my analytical armchair, and tinted with my obviously jaundiced eye: Sales, revenues, whatever you want to call that 100 mil figure that is being bandied about will bear no relationship to actual cash received and banked. I suspect that there is creative accounting at work, which leads on to the second matter of shortfall. Perhaps all product made has been put on the books right away. Then, horrors, the late culture results come in "contaminated" and a couple of weeks production has to be junked. The rosy projections are all contingent upon the awaited regulatory approvals, which of course require a track record of unsullied quality control. Poor fellows, they are now feeling sick to their stomachs. Which is why they didn't give a damn about the analysts and made no effort to placate them. The stock has tanked for at least two quarters, and possibly a third. If the gist of this is near enough to correct. Lord! Let me be in error! Of course I'm long, sitting on paper losses . We will know soon enough. If they did a little kiss and make up post conference with the angry analaysts, somebody on the thread please let us know if there is a resumption of institutional buying. And the actual MUSE? I don't know anymore than what anyone here can read. However, for perspective, 65% efficacy is phenomenally good. Just compare this figure to those success percentages for the dozens of blood pressure medicines, or antidepressants, or anti-ulcer preparations, or arthritis cures, and on and on - not many can claim much better. Lastly, a kind word for our beleagured CEO. He has hit the nail on the head with his marketing focus. The specialist urologists and endocrinolgists may continue to sniff and nitpick and wish there was something better, and so they should, it's their job. But the NEJM article is the magic open sesame to the primary care docs. An illustration how this market works: There are 20 million people out there on Prozac but only (correct me someone <g>) about 35000 psychiatrists, some of whom remain just talking shrinks. The scripts are patient driven and are coming from primary care. Dermot