npat & valuation, page-65

GD- I love the idea of focusing on downside scenarios as well. However I’m struggling to find any evidence that suggests your "diseconomies of scale" scenario- where when Reddys are up to full speed they only achieve a 20-25% market share, with a 50% discount to brand name- therefore pushing up the price per unit of production.

I've found this scenario's to exist, but not when a first to market generic is only competing against a Brand name + the AG. There is even examples discussed in other threads that show Reddy's taking considerable market share when vs GSK + the AG- in these exact type of 3 way situation's. Matt's figures represent this pretty well, they also support the figures shown in the latest FTC report. This 20-25% that you talk of seems to be more like what Reddys achieve when VS multiple generic competitors.

From my understanding it might take Reddy's a little bit longer to get the production numbers up, because as we all know the process of producing Fonda is slow & complex etc etc. But this shouldn’t affect market share in the long term and will all be factored into Reddys marketing strategy- which could be another reason for the "reported" slow up take of fonda.

Do you have some information that the rest of us aren’t aware of? If not, then to help support this worst case scenario, could you please provide some examples where Reddys achieve a 25% market share with a 50% discount to brand name- when only competing against the brand name + the AG.

Good on ya mate.