|
|
Post by traderdennis on May 9, 2018 19:42:34 GMT -5
wow, 2.2 million in additional revenue, but cogs when up 1.5 million. 5.2 million additional expense in head count. so to get an extra 2.2 million it costs 6.7 million. Negative contribution revenue. Not good. Spencer Osborne says, "Simply stated, Q1 has benefits that subsequent quarters will not have because of the accounting shift." I'm afraid i don't quite understand his explanation. How much of today's reported revenue was due to whatever it is he is talking about? I read the release pretty quickly. I think 400k of the 3.4 was attributed to accelerated revenue recognition but I defer to Matt who has a much better understanding of these reports. |
|
|
|
Post by digger on May 9, 2018 19:52:39 GMT -5
I don't quite get this -- "Research and development (R&D) expenses for the first quarter of 2018 were $2.6 million compared to $3.1 million for the first quarter of 2017, a decrease of $0.5 million or 16%. This decrease reflected a $1.1 million reallocation of salary and salary-related expenses from R&D in 2017 to selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) in 2018) associated with personnel who were engaged in R&D activities in 2017 and transitioned to providing medical affairs and pharmacovigilance support to Afrezza commercial activities in 2018." pharmacovigilance -- "the practice of monitoring the effects of medical drugs after they have been licensed for use, especially in order to identify and evaluate previously unreported adverse reactions." Why do they need to take people out of R&D to do "pharmacovigilance"? What exactly do they do? Crunching numbers on the Adverse Events data reported to FDA vs prior trial data to see if they find any unexpected signals? That's likely not a full time job for many. A person can report time into different expense categories, so this doesn't mean people have necessarily stopped R&D work entirely to switch over to any one of these other areas. Yes, but towards what end? I looked back through some 10-qs and 10-ks and pharmacovigilance wasn't ever mentioned before. That part of the definition about "especially in order to identify and evaluate previously unreported adverse reactions" is bugging me. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 9, 2018 20:05:24 GMT -5
Crunching numbers on the Adverse Events data reported to FDA vs prior trial data to see if they find any unexpected signals? That's likely not a full time job for many. A person can report time into different expense categories, so this doesn't mean people have necessarily stopped R&D work entirely to switch over to any one of these other areas. Yes, but towards what end? I looked back through some 10-qs and 10-ks and pharmacovigilance wasn't ever mentioned before. That part of the definition about "especially in order to identify and evaluate previously unreported adverse reactions" is bugging me. I think that would be totally expected. It may well be that this is simply tightening up their accounting. Perhaps they've really been performing those functions for some time but they're now being more precise about what category to expense their time. Perhaps. Maybe PB Matt can comment about whether this seems out of the ordinary in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on May 9, 2018 21:12:10 GMT -5
Could be something sprouted by Dr Kendall, doesn’t mean any unidentified adverse events exist imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 9, 2018 21:30:08 GMT -5
And anyone can download the adverse events data if you're interested in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by brentie on May 9, 2018 22:12:53 GMT -5
|
|
