|
|
Post by joeypotsandpans on Aug 13, 2014 14:54:35 GMT -5
The questions that could be answered on monday and voluntarily or strategically weren't are what I believe is the crème de la crème that Matt (and Pierre on the morning call as well) alluded to regarding (and you could tell from a CFO standpoint his hard to contain enthusiasm) getting their cost of goods basis down even lower with SNY as a supplier once their insulin was approved. Everytime a question was asked about their marketing strategy and costs to the patient population along with gaining a favorable status among the insurers they responded "we can't really go into details due to competitive reasons" etc. Well think and chew on this for a bit, what if the costs are more than competitive and they actually end up getting a preferred status from the insurers etc. ...I always said in the past, NOVO should have really made a play for the big A, they stand to lose quite a bit IMO and I don't know how much they can stand should they need to drop their prices...it could get ugly for both LLY and NVO when it comes to RAA market share down the road JMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdcenter61 on Aug 13, 2014 16:11:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by papihoyos on Aug 13, 2014 21:04:52 GMT -5
I think it more like $1.6B that they recoup form the JV but really its only 65% of that number because they are responsible for 35% of the costs. Regarding the $925M milestone payments, I'm not sure if its a cost of the JV or Sanofi cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Aug 14, 2014 1:03:07 GMT -5
You sure it was expensed and not capitalized? |
|
|
|
Post by rak5555 on Aug 14, 2014 8:06:50 GMT -5
I have an email into Matt asking for clarification on 2 issues: First, will any prior period expenses (e.g. cost of prior clinical trials) be charged to the partnership? Second, how does the deal structure keep Apidra from taking sales focus away from Afrezza. I will post his response assuming I get one. I also suggested MNKD publish a Q&A similar to last time there was so much confusion.
Baba - $2.3 billion retained earnings on balance sheet means it was expensed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdcenter61 on Aug 14, 2014 9:05:00 GMT -5
You sure it was expensed and not capitalized? Under GAAP it must be expensed. I looked at historical balance sheets (12/31/13, etc) and it was not capitalized. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Aug 14, 2014 11:05:35 GMT -5
I have an email into Matt asking for clarification on 2 issues: First, will any prior period expenses (e.g. cost of prior clinical trials) be charged to the partnership? Second, how does the deal structure keep Apidra from taking sales focus away from Afrezza. I will post his response assuming I get one. I also suggested MNKD publish a Q&A similar to last time there was so much confusion. Baba - $2.3 billion retained earnings on balance sheet means it was expensed. I think the straightforward answer is that Apidra has not gained market traction and thus Sanofi has every incentive to jump on board another prandial solution with full commitment to making it a blockbuster. Would be hard to do that strictly targeting the competing pens while somehow protecting Apidra from sales cannibalization. I suppose they could have gotten really creative in the deal and had MNKD get the same profit split for Apidra sales... thus removing any incentive SNY would have for continuing to push Apidra. I guess that could have been accommodated by reducing the fees not linked to profit. But obviously that didn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Aug 14, 2014 13:11:47 GMT -5
"But obviously that didn't happen." Not so obvious, dream, they didn't say everything about the deal. Let's see what kind of response rak gets from Matt.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Aug 14, 2014 13:30:14 GMT -5
"But obviously that didn't happen." Not so obvious, dream, they didn't say everything about the deal. Let's see what kind of response rak gets from Matt. People are speculating, I think incorrectly, that the language they used might be construed to mean past R&D will be included in costs passed on to the partnership... but there is NOTHING in anything released or discussed that would suggest that Sanofi is giving up part of Apidra sales. What do you suppose you'd do if you bought Sanofi last week thinking they got a good deal on Afrezza only to find out Sanofi gave up revenue on Apidra in the deal and simply neglected to mention it... you'd probably be finding an attorney for a class action. I fail to see a reason they'd leave that info out and see strong reasons why they wouldn't if it were true. I'm flattered that you'd think this humble lizard's idea something that might actually have been put in the deal... but I simply made that up. If there is something regarding Apidra, it probably has to do with limiting Sanofi's marketing/advertising budget for it and/or compensation for sales team. Those details, if included in the deal, are something I could see being withheld as something they would not want competitors to know about ahead of time. |
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Aug 14, 2014 13:40:48 GMT -5
Hopefully Sanofi releases their vision & marketing plan for Afrezza soon to stabilize things. Once the onslaught of marketing begins STANDBY! They are not partnering up to lose money especially if they think they got the better end of the partnership deal with Al!
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Aug 14, 2014 14:53:20 GMT -5
Hopefully Sanofi releases their vision & marketing plan for Afrezza soon to stabilize things. Once the onslaught of marketing begins STANDBY! They are not partnering up to lose money especially if they think they got the better end of the partnership deal with Al! Based on the fact that the deal will be attached to MNKD's next 10Q earnings when it could have been appended to the current one, coupled with the fact that the deal was done right after Sanofi's earnings call... I'm guessing the "soon" is going to be at their next round of earnings basically 3 months away. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Aug 14, 2014 15:10:35 GMT -5
I hope they explain some detail before then.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Aug 14, 2014 17:03:55 GMT -5
Another possibility is that Afrezza could help Sanofi increase sales of Apidra sales... Many would say this makes no sense (and they might be right...) but if Sanofi is seen as a 'one stop shop' for all insulins: basal, inhaled and injected meal time insulins could Apidra not steal some of the market share from Novo and Lilly?
I imagine seamless integrations of different insulins (all from Sanofi obviously...) in the treatment algorithms of any future studies of Afrezza. What insulin would be used by Medtronic and Sanofi for future pump studies?
Would insurers get a package deal of a bunch of insulins from Sanofi? Would some even go exclusively or preferentially with Sanofi insulins?
Basically I could see the arrival as Afrezza as a disaster for prandials from Novo and Lilly but not so bad for Apidra.
JPG
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Aug 14, 2014 17:16:44 GMT -5
Another possibility is that Afrezza could help Sanofi increase sales of Apidra sales... Many would say this makes no sense (and they might be right...) but if Sanofi is seen as a 'one stop shop' for all insulins: basal, inhaled and injected meal time insulins could Apidra not steal some of the market share from Novo and Lilly? I imagine seamless integrations of different insulins (all from Sanofi obviously...) in the treatment algorithms of any future studies of Afrezza. What insulin would be used by Medtronic and Sanofi for future pump studies? Would insurers get a package deal of a bunch of insulins from Sanofi? Would some even go exclusively or preferentially with Sanofi insulins? Basically I could see the arrival as Afrezza as a disaster for prandials from Novo and Lilly but not so bad for Apidra. JPG When it comes to Apidra I think the operative concept is there would hardly be anywhere to go but up. However, I don't think Sanofi would miss it. It's chump change to Lantus. |
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Aug 14, 2014 17:56:13 GMT -5
Another possibility is that Afrezza could help Sanofi increase sales of Apidra sales... Many would say this makes no sense (and they might be right...) but if Sanofi is seen as a 'one stop shop' for all insulins: basal, inhaled and injected meal time insulins could Apidra not steal some of the market share from Novo and Lilly? I imagine seamless integrations of different insulins (all from Sanofi obviously...) in the treatment algorithms of any future studies of Afrezza. What insulin would be used by Medtronic and Sanofi for future pump studies? Would insurers get a package deal of a bunch of insulins from Sanofi? Would some even go exclusively or preferentially with Sanofi insulins? Basically I could see the arrival as Afrezza as a disaster for prandials from Novo and Lilly but not so bad for Apidra. JPG When it comes to Apidra I think the operative concept is there would hardly be anywhere to go but up. However, I don't think Sanofi would miss it. It's chump change to Lantus. I agree Sanofi wouldn't miss Apdra if and when Afrezza becomes their new 'combo' blockbuster. This makes Sanofi an ideal non conflicted partner. My point was that, from where Apidra is now selling, overall name recognition of Sanofi's prandial insulin could only increase and actually see an increase in use without it even being directly promoted. This in no way means I think Sanofi will push an 'also' prandial insulin over Afrezza. That would be pointless obviously. JPG |
|
