Do they justify that price with hard metrics?
I'm all for a big payout down the line, god knows I've worked hard enough in the health industry over the past decades to justify an early retirement, but brokers do tend to just throw numbers out there, especially on pay-per-view platforms.
Again, I apologise to LTH's (something I'm going to do less of, as I read more) as a johnny-come-lately, but we all know that FDA approval sets the stage for across-the-board FDA satisfaction with safety, efficacy and production, leaving the end point data as the only metric the FDA have to Yay or Nay on - specifically concerning the CLBP and LVF / CHF medications that are coming online hopefully in the next 12 - 24 months, trials data permitting.
I can factor in Child Medication (SR-aGVHD) sales, and associated off-label uses before the Adult approval for the same purpose is also approved.Up to 30,000 patients at $300,000 is not to be sniffed at
.interesting trial Data here:
The relative number of trials compared to the population of affected patients varies widely. There are 76 trials reported for graft vs host disease (GvHD) for an annual patient population of ~30 000, which is the highest ratio we found for the number of trials relative to the patient population (Supplemental Table S2). The intense focus on GvHD is likely due to the success in treating this disease with MSCs by IV in the clinic,8 which makes it a validated target for testing treatments with other types of MSCs. ALS also has many trials relative to the patient population probably because of the rapid progression of the disease and lack of any effective treatment.
I can also see the potential billions of $$$ for EACH one of the Back Pain and Congestive Heart Failure medications - even so far as the initial results on Traumatic Spinal Cord Separation repair,which is impossible to factor into any sort of discussion involving $$$ Vs quality of life.
These are still a fair way off, and it would be very very ambitious to allow those medications - as promising as MPC-06-ID and Revascor are looking.I'm asking, I guess, just how much *wishful thinking* do these analysts indulge themselves in, and whilst I do that myself every time I look at my broker data recently, I'm not seeing $17 per share staring back at me.
I really dislike 'pumps' as there is always a 'dump' to follow, and I have to ask if MSB really needs this kind of overly ambitious broker play when if FDA does what we all hope it will, then $5 - $8 is quantifiable and realistic based on previous SP Mesoblast data.I guess I'm not sure MSB needs the publicity that surrounds such bold statements, especially if there is a delay for any reason of the permitting approval for SR-aGVHD.
I'd hate to see the SP go to $5+ in the next 3 months only for much wailing and gnashing of teeth to occur if a delay were to happen. Market confidence is a fickle beast, and maybe at the moment, no publicity isn't a bad thing, as MSB should be able to sustain it's own organic growth from here on in?
Expand
(20min delay)
