There were a couple of questions about my last valuation which looked at the downside $A2 to $3 a share range for just success on Ryoncil in aGvHD ie assuming nothing else get approved. I also strayed into looking at the upside and wrongly applied the exchange rate, meaning the upside is much higher than I had opined. In fact, it looked so high that I’ve spent hours going back through the analyst valuations to see what would happen if I applied similar assumptions to their aGvHD Ryoncil valuations, and I get similar very high numbers, although all of the numbers are highly subject to assumptions at this stage.
My overall 12-month MSB valuation remains in the $A10 to $A20 range for the whole company, excluding Covid-19 ARDS. The potential opportunity for Covid-19 ARDS is so big it blows everything else away – and as I’ve said before it could be worth $A200 per share IFF everything goes right. So, I separate the two potential valuations – I might have to radically revise the overall valuation after the Covid-19 trial reads out and once we see the reaction of the FDA.
Please note, at this stage, before we get FDA approvals, before we have seen product sales, you can come up with any number you like. I’m just trying to show the sensitivities and potential ranges of the analysts’ forecasts and you can make your own assumptions. My analysis shows that the analysts are seriously low-balling the potential upside (even before you add Covid-19 ARDS) yet the analyst consensus still comes up with average NPV valuations in excess of $A5 per share.
Some of the analysts actually acknowledge they are low-balling valuations in their notes, but they don't go on to explore the potential upside (probably because they'd be labelled as rampers or loonies.
If you use P/E ratios for example, you could use 20x or you could use 30x and get a 50% higher valuation – it’s more art than science – though I would note that with the surge in growth and tech stocks that CSL is currently on a P/E of 41x based on a profit range of $US2.11 to $US2.17 billion or $A6.73 per share (at AUDUSD 70c) and CSL’s profit in $US is growing in the range of 10-13%. So, at present (in the current crazy market), it’s not a stretch to price MSB on a P/E of 40x as it is much earlier in its development with potentially much stronger profit growth (once profits start!). I haven’t used 40x, however, and am using a much lower P/E for MSB in line with the Aussie Industrial Market Average (ex Financials).
I will come to all that later in this note. It’s important to review some of the big news announcements which came in the past week as they give even more validation to how much progress MSB is making and how confident they are that Ryoncil will be approved. Once we review that, we can have another look at potential upside to valuations.
Firstly, another great week for MSB
The appointment of a highly regarded COO in preparation for a commercial operation starting in the US by the end of September: Dagmar Rosa-Bjorkeson to the role of Chief Operating Officer (COO), based in New York. Ms Rosa-Bjorkeson’s responsibilities will include managing commercial operations, leading the business units, building out key strategic alliances, and overseeing product launches. She will be part of an expanded executive leadership structure that will deliver deep operational, commercial, and strategic pharmaceutical experience in line with the Company’s transition to becoming a fully integrated commercial organization. This is a great sign of the company’s confidence that it will be launching product in the near future and that MSB will need a very senior person to lead the commercialisation in the US
The announcement of the 13 August Ad Comm to review the FDA Biologic Licence Application for paediatric SR-aGvHD. Its hard to believe the FDA won’t approve this as it is a very nasty disease killing kids, with no other cure once steroids don’t work. Senior doctors in the US have told me they are desperate to use Ryoncil on their patients and will recommend it to all their paediatric patients who fail to respond to steroids. I also believe doctors will be keen to extend the label to adults and may even “off-label” it to adults who are having bad side effects from Jakafi.
The Lonza podcast with CEO Silviu Itescu reiterating the positive comments about the Covid-19 ARDS trial being on track and repeating the expectation that patient recruitment will take about 3-4 months. “In the meanwhile we’ll be having early interim analyses that hopefully will show that the sort of efficacy we’ve seen in the pilot study is being replicated”. That’s important, as if we DO see that level of “overwhelming efficacy”, I calculate MSB will easily meet the requirements of an early end after 90 patients. So, The Prof is still saying it is possible we’ll see that, indicating he’s seen nothing to think it isn’t possible.
There was also a comment from Dr Itescu that “we have some very important read outs coming up – if positive those will put us in the position in a position to launch additional products in the US and EU in conditions that are inflammatory in nature – particularly cardiac and that are pain related.” Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but he could’ve just said launching in Heart Failure and Back Pain – instead, his words imply to me that MSB could be in a position to launch a wider group of inflammation related products – maybe it’s just a nuance, but it could be talking about more label extensions.
The Prof went on to say “In the shorter term we are looking forward to launching our first product and that product has the potential to be used broadly in acute inflammatory conditions that are life threatening, GvHD is the first, we hope that Covid-19 is the second. Beyond that there are other indications that cause ARDS including ‘flu virus and bacterial infection. And so we’ll be focussing the potential to use Remestemcel-L more broadly than just Covid-19 for other conditions and acute inflammatory lung disease and I think you’ll see Mesoblast focussing very much on the pulmonary implications beyond what we’ve just talked about." WOW – that’s very positive language for a guy who is usually pretty guarded when making public statements.
The U.Penn Hospital video of Dr Nimesh Desai (Principal Investigator on the Covid-19 ARDS trial at U.Penn). He made positive comments about Mesoblast’s “off the shelf” cells and how they don’t require complex processing in the lab to use them (I have heard the same comment from other US hospitals re MSB’s professionalism in delivering the cells and their ease of processing). He went on to explain how different this is to growing a patient's own cells for treatment, which we all know, but great to hear it from an independent doctor - “So it certainly can be scaled because it’s not happening at that individual patient level to recruit bone marrow and then grow cells which is pretty complicated and you could imagine couldn’t happen in a large group of patients simultaneously even at one hospital because of the constraints of what a stem cell lab could do. Because it’s off the shelf it theoretically can be scaled to actually be able to treat literally thousands of patients simultaneously because it doesn’t require as much processing at the individual hospital level…” That sounds like a pretty ringing endorsement of the whole experience he’s having with Mesoblast.
Dr Desai also referred to the impressive changes in inflammatory markers in previous trials – I’m sure he wouldn’t say that if he thought the current trial was failing. He straight out said “MSC’s can reduce production of inflammatory cytokines, increase production of anti-inflammatory cytokines and alter the kind of inflammatory cells in the lungs to try and limit the damage which means they reduce the entire cytokine storm with a single therapy.” He added “from what we’ve seen in the early ARDS trials, small trials not done in Covid-19 but in other groups of patients, there’s been a fairly impressive change in some of the inflammatory markers”. That’s exactly what Mesoblast has been saying – it’s great to hear it explicitly from a senior, independent US doctor.
Dr Desai, speaking about Dexamethasone and Mesoblast, said “I think that these two therapies may be quite complementary.” Again this is a positive, and as I’ve said before, there’s no way MSB can treat all the ARDS patients in the US and we need to concentrate on the sickest people with no other real hope. If Dexa or Remdesivir can treat some of the less sick patients and also help MSB cure the worst cases, that’s a great thing, especially if the FDA approves combinations of all these treatments – it locks MSB into the Standard of Care. He also said the stem cells “have been shown to be fairly safe and well tolerated in patients with ARDS” – that’s a huge difference to many of the other treatments with nasty side effects (including death in the case of Hydoxychloraquine).
Dr Desai also said on patient enrolment “It’s hard to know as Covid-19 kind of winds its way through different parts of the country how quickly it will enrol- but there isn’t a long time lag between when we finish enrolment and when we’ll have some meaningful results”. That doesn’t sound like there’s any concern over the rate of enrolment nor that there will be much delay before we get results.
The Michael Bowdish letter stated (just over a week ago) “We have now enrolled 30 patients – 10% of the trial target. This has been a monumental undertaking.” He also noted, “While several NYC area hospitals have succeeded in closing their COVID ICUs, ours at LAC+USC Medical Center are at their fullest levels since the pandemic began – COMPLETELY FULL. Texas, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina (among others) are even worse.” Again, combined with what he said later in his blog, it sounds like the trial is going well and there are no issues noted with the MSB cells at his hospital.
The article in The Australian quoting our CMO Fred Grossman, with the article saying that “he had confidence that the trial would prove the effectiveness of the treatment but cautioned that nothing was guaranteed until the final results were known”. He said “I have confidence that we will be successful ... but a lot of this will depend on continuing discussions with the FDA” and the article went on to disclose that “the company is nearing the end of a 300-patient randomised, placebo-controlled trial for Covid patients on ventilators at more than 20 US hospitals. The forthcoming interim findings of the trial, which began in May, will be assessed by an independent team of experts. The full trial is expected to be completed by October but depending on interim results, the team of experts could recommend fast tracking the treatment for FDA approval immediately”. The statement that it is at more than 20 hospitals seems to be ahead of the CTSN updating the Clinicaltrials.gov website – which still only lists 15 hospitals. I’d expect that to be updated on Monday after Dr Grossman was quoted saying it was up to 20. Again, like Dr Itescu, Dr Grossman says the full trial is expected to be completed by October, so that indicates the timeframes are still on track and he adds very strong language, saying “could recommend fast tracking the treatment for FDA approval immediately” – that sounds very positive to me, and sounds like he still thinks fast tracking is in the set of possibilities.
" Forthcoming interim findings" sounds positive. As for "nearing the end of the trial" well maybe the journo got it wrong, but maybe Dr Grossman is alluding to an early end based on the first 90 patients. I'm still surprised they haven't announced the completing of dosing the first 90, though given Dr Grossman's interview, I'd expect some clarification - hopefully before the market opens on Monday morning.
For me, the announcements and developments of the past week are way ahead of what I was expecting and confirm everything I’ve heard publicly from Mesoblast, on the efficacy of the cells, the likelihood of approval, the mechanism of action, the ability of MSB to produce high quality cells easily used by the hospitals, the trial being on track in a very difficult hospital environment etc. It makes sense that MSB has moved forward appointing a highly regarded COO to drive commercialisation and sends out a strong message that MSB believes FDA approval is forthcoming.
Primed for Trial Results – US Phase of Mesoblast
People have been discussing whether Mesoblast will end up moving to the US. It is obvious that the bulk of sales and profits will come from the US and that basing the Chairman, COO, CMO and sales team in the US effectively means it is a US company already, with a head office nominally in Melbourne.
This is similar to the situation for BHP, with global headquarters in Melbourne and dual share listings in Australia and the UK, with US ADRs also listed. The English-registered plc arm has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. I expect MSB has a strong chance of entering the Nasdaq Biotech Index in November as well as staying in the ASX200.
I’ve never liked the BHP and RIO dual listing setup and prefer MSB’s current approach – and even though we would probably see a better price if MSB was solely listed in the US, it is possible that the drift of Aussie shares on to the ADR register will continue and that eventually the price will actually be set in the US as trading volumes there eventually eclipse Australia.
There may also be government considerations regarding biotech security and restrictions on overseas ownership is more sensitive at present after FIRB was tightened during the Covid-19 period to stop Australian companies being sold cheaply to overseas buyers. There is some thinking that this was more to stop Chinese companies taking advantage of share prices smashed by Covid-19. So a takeover by a US company at a premium price may be allowed, or a larger percentage of the total share register by US instos may be tolerated by the Australian Government, especially if there were to be some quid-pro-quo whereby President Trump guaranteed a percentage of the stem cells produced in America would be made available to fight Covid-19 in Australia (this is all pure speculation on my part).
I’m still not sure that a major parcel of stock wasn’t spirited away at the end of April when 30m ADRs traded in one night (3x the number of ADRs then on issue) – did the US Government, or one of its agencies buy stock? Did a big pharma buy stock? Could it have been the Chinese? Was it just a big fund taking a position? That was equivalent to 150m shares traded in a night and the price skyrocketed. A lot of churning probably happened as well – but someone bought a big line. No substantial shareholder notices were issued, and I'm surprised the exchanges didn't look into it. The number of ADRs listed rose around the time of that transaction from 8.5m to 10m and now up to 14.2m – may be related – ie a broker shorted to a big buyer, then bought stock in the Aussie market and converted that stock into ADRs to cover the short in the US.
Having said that biosecurity may be an issue, the Australian Government hasn’t done anything to guarantee a local production of MSB stem cells, despite MSB telling us they were negotiating with four governments and despite big hitters like Alex Waislitz being quoted as saying: "I think Meso is now finally well on the way to becoming a major Australian success story and I’m hopeful the Australian government will recognise Meso’s potential and encourage them to develop their stem cell manufacturing capabilities in Australia rather than lose them to another country such as the United States or elsewhere."
Our government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on Corona Virus economic measures (extra debt in the current year is estimated at $184 billion) and announced a paltry investment of $66 million from the Medical Research Future Fund into finding a vaccine and treatments for COVID-19, as well as better preparing for future pandemics. None of this appears to be going to our best shot at saving lives (Mesoblast’s MSCs) and one wonders how far a lousy $A66m ($US46m) will go on vaccines and other potential treatments when the US is doling out $US1 billion to $US2 billion per company to fund vaccine development.
The closest I can see to something approaching MSB’s US trials is “the Australian Government programme includes $6.8 million to support seven clinical trials investigating treatments for the severe respiratory symptoms of COVID-19. The clinical trials supported by this funding will investigate treatments for critically ill patients, health care workers and vulnerable cancer patients.” That’s less than $A1m per trial – are they joking? I estimate the full 300 person trial in the US for people with moderate to severe ARDS will cost up to $US50m to run and the stem cells provided by MSB could cost up to $US8.5m (300 people at $US28,000 each – my guesses). People have asked what happened to the Victor Chang trial of stem cells – I think this lack of funding by the Aussie Govt answers that question – while they’re doing something, the health response is pathetic compared to the economic response – and they could fix the economic problem by having a reasonably cheap health response via MSB.
My bigger gripe is that the government looks like completely missing the opportunity to lock stem cell production into Australia by helping fund a manufacturing production facility here. It could use MSB’s world leading patented technology and give a boost to all the government rhetoric about the “clever country” and providing jobs in the “STEM” industries. This could be set up as a large-scale plant for use domestically but also exporting cells around the world. Once MSB sets up large scale volume production elsewhere there will be lower demand for exports and little attraction in building a sub-scale plant in Australia unless there is significant government funding. This window will close in the next six months, or possibly much sooner once products gain FDA approval by the end of September and a foreign government or pharma company locks in a manufacturing incentive package.
Is bio-security a thing?
You’d better believe it! At the end of June, the United States government announced that it had secured the entire supply of Remdesivir until September. In March, there were reports that Donald Trump’s administration tried to buy a German company working on a COVID-19 vaccine in order to secure the entire supply for the U.S.
A group formed by France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands struck a deal in the past few weeks to secure 400 million doses of AstraZeneca’s potential vaccine, although other countries are also encouraged to join the group on the same terms. Whether poor countries could afford the terms is another question.
It's every country (or bloc) for himself out there at the moment and Australia risks letting MSB slip away through total negligence.
Might that cause a takeover?
Might a large global pharma make a takeover bid for MSB? Well, the market cap of MSB is currently a measly $US1.4bn. A takeover at a 40% premium (around $A5 per share) would still only value MSB at less than $US2bn. That’s chump change for most US pharma companies. The Trump administration will pay Pfizer nearly $2bn just for a December delivery of 100m doses of a Covid-19 vaccine the pharmaceutical company is developing – and there’s no guarantee the vaccine will work.
The US National Institutes of Health announced in April that it would launch a sweeping public-private partnership between federal researchers and 16 pharmaceutical companies, aimed at coordinating and accelerating the development of Covid-19 treatments and vaccines. The 16 drug companies involved and their market caps are: AbbVie $US173bn, Amgen $US148bn, AstraZeneca $US143bn, Bristol Myers Squibb $US131bn, Evotec $US4bn, GlaxoSmithKline $US101bn, Johnson & Johnson $US390bn, KSQ Therapeutics, Eli Lilly $US154bn, Merck $US197bn, Novartis $US192bn, Pfizer $US213bn, Roche $US293bn, Sanofi $US130bn, Takeda $US55bn, and Vir Biotechnology $US6bn. A vaccine is a long shot and expensive to trial and deliver - most of those companies won’t succeed with a vaccine, but they could easily swallow MSB and thereby deliver a solution to the worst aspects of the Covid-19 crisis – and most of them wouldn’t even notice spending $US2 billion on an acquisition.
MSB would deliver a much bigger boost to the big pharmas’ market cap than the $US2 billion cost and analysts would immediately increase their probability of success and reduce the discount rate they use in valuing MSB – meaning their valuation would shoot up. I show in the valuation section below how the analysts’ models could easily reach $A10 to $A20 per share and that’s with nothing in the valuation for Covid-19 ARDS. That’s at least double to four times the cost of the acquisition AND it gives the pharma bragging rights to saving the world from Covid-19 ARDS.
It wouldn’t hurt President Trump’s re-election chances either if a big US pharma took over the foreign company with the cure for the disease killing 80% of the people who die from Covid-19. In fact, you could argue that Trump is so far behind at the moment, that this is the kind of crazy left-field stunt he may try to pull to try to show he’s doing something to save lives threatened by Covid-19.
Silviu Itescu’s years of experience in the US – both medical and corporate
Would it change much if MSB was a US company? Would Silviu Itescu block a move to headquarter in the US or block a takeover move? I think he’d fight a takeover vigorously, but a change in HQ to the US probably wouldn’t be a big deal.
Remember that Dr Itescu spent 20 years living in the US – after graduating from Monash Medical School and a 1 year internship at The Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, he moved to the US to do a residency at New York’s Bellevue Hospital, the public teaching hospital of the University of New York, where he arrived right in the middle of the AIDS epidemic. Thirty percent of admissions were HIV/AIDS patients – so he’s lived the current exhausting and scary experience of New York doctors. When he completed his residency he undertook a three year fellowship in immunology and rheumatology at New York University. In 2000, Dr Itescu was recruited to Columbia University, which had the biggest heart transplant group in the US, to establish an immunology research unit for transplants and he was Columbia’s director of transplantation immunology for the Departments of Surgery and Medicine.
In 2001, Columbia encouraged him to set up a US company, Angioblast Systems for continued investigation of stem cells and biologicals for cardio-vascular disease and possible commercialisation at some stage. Along with seed investors, Columbia University, medical personnel and pharmaceutical executives the company was founded. Angioblast continued its investigation of stem cells and biologicals for cardio-vascular disease in the US until it was merged with Mesoblast in 2010.
So, Dr Itescu had already been running a US based company (Angioblast Systems) with an American based team since 2001 before he set up and listed Mesoblast in Australia in 2004, using the stem cell solution sourced from Adelaide’s Hanson Institute, Medvet and Dr Paul Simmons. Angioblast had no interest in the Mesoblast orthopaedic program, but Silviu saw the value of having stem cells for both bone and cardiac. He set up Mesoblast in Australia specifically to commercialize the orthopaedic indications for the technology.
In a 2008 interview, talking about potential of a US listing, Dr Itescu said said there was a full range of options ahead. The two companies could be rolled together, Angioblast could be listed separately on Nasdaq. “Today we don’t know which way to go. It depends on how both the trials and the markets go.” Angioblast was investigating cardiac and other indications including eye disease, while Mesoblast focused on long bone, spine and cartilage.
Back in 2008, Dr Itescu said he owned “less than 50 percent of Angioblast” and about 34 percent of Mesoblast. Mesoblast originally licensed rights to Angioblast’s products. There was also a cross shareholding between the two companies. The merger of the two companies rationalised that somewhat complicated structure. Of course, now The Prof owns a significantly smaller holding in a much more advanced company which has completed three phase 3 trials – all internally funded with the possibility of sales of its first product in the next two months and potential global blockbusters in Heart Failure, Chronic Lower Back Pain and, fingers crossed, Covid-19 ARDS. So there has been such a change to the Mesoblast product structure and corporate structure since 2008 as to make it almost unrecogniseable compared to the Mesoblast of today.
I must admit that I was one of the people back in 2010 urging Dr Itescu to merge both companies to simplify the ownership structure and make clear to investors just which technology they were investing in, and also to simplify management decision making and any potential conflicts of interest.
In late 2010, just before the Cephalon deal, Mesoblast acquired Angioblast outright, to consolidate all their activities under one umbrella.
As EvaluateVantage noted in Dec 2010, “Given that Mesoblast needed a strong commercial partner, but did not have complete ownership of Angioblast’s candidates – something that may have put off potential suitors in this high-risk arena – it would seem that its acquisition of Angioblast was implicit in attracting Cephalon.”
Before Covid-19, CEO Dr Itescu was constantly travelling, and with new partnering deals to be signed in the US and Europe as well as important investor meetings and overseeing the business in the US, I’m sure he’ll be travelling even more in the future – once Covid-19 restrictions on travel are relaxed. I hope he keeps an Esky full of cells with him, just in case. The physical HQ location probably doesn’t make that much difference to him given all the travel requirements (obviously on hold at present). He will still have to be in the US often to meet potential partners, US insto shareholders, and make sure the new COO is performing. In my view (which is a guess) lack of support from the Aussie Govt probably means MSB’s days in Australia are numbered, and even with such support this may have happened anyway.
Mesoblast has now put everything in place to launch paediatric SR-aGvHD in the US, subject to a positive FDA determination. The all-day Advisory Committee reviewing aGvHD is now less than three weeks away, on Aug 13th, and a positive review from the AdComm could even mean approval comes before the Sep 30th deadline.
Mesoblast have a sales force, they have built inventory and they have health funds which have listed the product subject to FDA approval. They now have a new COO to drive that forward.
As CEO, The Prof would be run off his feet at present – negotiating with governments, working on partnering deals, co-ordinating and prioritising trials and medical research (confirmatory trials with partners in Europe and potentially US, new product candidates etc) and supervising the commercial roll-out in the US. Zoom meetings probably make this all more efficient and doable, but it probably means he’s awake 24/7 and long term there’s no substitute for actual feet on the ground.
So, given all of this history, including right up until this week, I don’t see a major barrier to Mesoblast moving its listing to the US.
Saving The World
The Australian newspaper repeats what I and several others have been saying since March regarding the incredible potential of MSCs to treat the worst aspects of Covid-19: “If the trial produces even a remotely similar outcome to that achieved in the Mt Sinai program, it could literally take death off the table for many of the most severely affected COVID-19 patients,’ Mesoblast says in a briefing note. “It would take the pressure off ICU wards and dramatically reduce treatment times and costs, not to mention the economic and social impact of all but eliminating the risk of death from contracting COVID-19.’’
While we have been accused of ramping, the company is saying exactly what we were anticipating. I simply drew the conclusion that if you could get people back to work and save the sickest patients from death, then you would save lives and quality of life for hundreds of thousands of people from the worst pandemic since the 1918 Spanish ‘Flu and at the same time save the global economy from the worst slump since the Great Depression (again alleviating massive suffering).
Our company could be saving the world from the worst public health disaster and economic disaster of the past century.
An excerpt from Dr Michael Bowdish (Principal Investigator for the MSB Covid-19 trial at USC Keck School of Medicine): The patient was “proned” (on their stomach) and had no knowledge of the presence of his family. There were no family pictures in the room, no one holding his hand, no last kiss goodbye. Ultimately, it was a lonely death in the glass cage. This how all COVID-19 patients die. Alone. I have seen much death as a heart surgeon, COVID-19 is the winner, it is horrific.
Someone asked on HC – how come some people with Covid-19 are sitting up next to family members and others are in a glass box unable to be touched. That’s simply the difference between someone with Covid-19 (many are “asymptomatic” – at least for the early part of the attack) and someone with the far worse disease of moderate to severe ARDS induced by Covid-19 (glass box- ventilated – unconscious – likely to have severe long-term complications even if you survive).
Some people are saying we’re all in this for the money and helping people doesn’t matter – not true. Socially responsible investing is a big growing global industry and a large number of people want to not only make a good return on investment, but also make sure their investments are doing good. That doesn’t mean they want to give their money away, just that they feel responsible for the companies their investments are supporting. They still want to make a decent return on investment, but they don’t want to harm people or the planet doing it – and if their investments can help others and save lives, then that’s a wonderful outcome.
Mesoblast has the imperative to earn the best return on capital available, or capital will flow elsewhere and competitors will take over its markets or make a takeover bid for the company (as happens to most successful but small Aussie biotechs). MSB has to make the returns which can be used to employ the best talent and retain them. Shareholders are then free to donate a portion of their investment gains to charity (and pay tax). That’s the best way of doing good and making sure the company not only survives, but prospers and continues to grow. That growth will enable MSB to raise more capital and allocate it to fund new trials and to move existing Tier 2 product candidates up to Tier 1 status and benefit millions of other disease sufferers.
I’ll leave the final word to Dr Bowdish, showing that not everyone’s in it for the money: “Never in my career has exhaustion been driven completely by what seems like endless inspiration. The exhaustion has to be ignored for the greater good. However, what I have learned is that this is not a feeling I alone share, but a feeling shared by all my colleagues in health care. That is inspiration. That is why we will succeed. Stay Safe, Mike"
I think we’d all like to say stay safe Mike, thanks for inspiring us.
NB I've had to split this post in 2.
Part 2 follows
MSB Price at posting:
$3.51 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)
