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 : NNVC - NanoViricides, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: donpat who wrote (11066)	8/28/2018 10:44:13 AM
From: HardToFind	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12871

In the scheme of things, a license royalty is but a pittance. That is what Seymour used to say when he believed it was 15% of earnings. (I don't know where he got the idea that net revenue was the same as earnings.) I had a long email exchange with him, and he came to realize net revenue was revenue minus refunds, a very different number from earnings. For perspective, if you took a 15% net revenue royalty from the Dow 30 stocks at the beginning of this year, 13 of the 30 of these established companies would immediately become money-losing companies. Despite Seymour's misinformed claims that 15% was a "tiny" royalty, it is enough to sink almost any young company that will be struggling to transition itself from an R&D company to a drug company (adding departments for manufacturing, legal, medical, regulatory compliance, etc.). Even after the company is established (if it ever becomes so) it would likely be around 50% of earnings under pretty optimistic assumptions. When I pressed Seymour about this misunderstanding of what "net revenues" really are, he informed me that the licensing deal was being re-written to benefit the shareholders. Shortly thereafter he was apparently fired. In short, it's an issue...and not merely a pittance. Do all youse guys have red hair and wear red hats??? No, but I do love red (smoked) herring!