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: hpgrant who wrote (12393)	11/5/2019 4:54:59 PM
From: KMBJN.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12873

Good point. I was just reading about Moderna's CMV vaccine from their R&D day. They do LNP mRNA vaccines, and estimated a 90% gross margin. Gardasil HPV vaccine ~$450, say $500 for CMV vaccine. That would mean cost of $50 for $500 sale. Let's assume the same for ShinglesCide: $50 cost of production and $500 per dose (one course) of cream. Theracour charges $65, plus takes 15% of $500 = $75. That is only $90/$450 = 20% of GP, not 60%. If gross margin is only 30%, then Theracour gets all of it: cost=.7$500=$350, TC gets 30%=$105, plus they get 15%500=$45. So, yeah, we need to know the expected gross margin for each dose to figure out how much if any will be left for NNVC. I think most drugs have GM of 50-90% (2 to 10x markup). Point is that if GM is 30%, NNVC gets 0, and Theracour all 30% of sales that is profit. At 50% GM, NNVC gets 20% of sales that is profit, and TC 30% of sales that is profit. At 70% GM, NNVC gets 46% of sales that is profit, and TC 24% of sales that is profit. At 90% GM, NNVC gets 72% of sales that is profit, and TC 18% of sales that is profit. Let's hope the expected costs of production are low and price is high (GM is high), so NNVC can reap most of the rewards.

To: hpgrant who wrote (12393)	11/5/2019 5:57:45 PM
From: Another_Just_me	Respond to of 12873

The first or second dose ( Dr. D had the first) will be over 100,000,000$s. after that who knows.

To: hpgrant who wrote (12393)	11/5/2019 11:35:44 PM
From: HardToFind	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12873

NNVC's bottom line can vary wildly with different assumptions. The entire range of variance is between "in the red" and "deep in the red". I'll admit that the revenue and cost numbers cited were totally made up without any basis...but the royalty charges and expense markups were not. I'm guessing that NNVC's drug production expenses compared to revenues will as high or higher than average in the industry, i.e., NNVC drug production will not be particularly cheap. But even if they're average for for a big pharma... If you take 6-8 of the top drug companies, average their revenues and COGS espense ratios, and add 30% to COGS (for markups) and then subtract 15% of revenues (for the royalty), you will get a VERY UGLY number on the bottom line. [I know, I've done it. I was all set up to explain at the last shareholder meeting, but was interrupted by misstatements (and untruths) from Diwan and Harry, his legal counsel.] As I recall, nearly half of the top, established drug companies go into the red (before taxes) just with the 15% royalty burden. They already have a fully established enterprise that they built w/o those burdens. NNVC does not. Unless our numbers are WILDLY GLORIOUS (or perhaps, even if), the company goes BK. And remember, Diwan is being paid by NNVC, but making decisions primarily in the best interest of TheraCour. Case in point, moving forward with VZV rather than HSV-1 and HSV-2. Delayed us a year and is going to cost us an additional $10 Mn plus in licensing expenses. No two ways about it, NNVC shareholders are screwed. It's a matter of "when", not "if". The deal is not necessarily catastrophic for NNVC. I disagree...