Robert Mohle

Robert Mohle
Contributor since: 2013
Great work on the prospective revenue, you just need to attach probabilities to them for a better comparison. In other words, the likelihood of Opko's revenue actually happening is higher than that of Prolor, and that is the reason for the price difference.
You can do it, just find out what the possible sales are in the future, assign a probability to that outcome, multiply by two, and then divide by 1.12 to the number of years in the future those annual sales are.
The formula is easy. The challenge is getting the inputs as accurate as possible.
For many companies the most likely outcome is that the stock goes to zero, if for example they only have a 25% chance of achieving their sales then there is a 75% chance they won't. But it still pays to buy the stock because you will get paid more than 3 to 1 if they do succeed. OPKO's CEO surely knows this and that is why he has purchased so many pipelines. If only 1 out of 4 work, then there is still a big payoff.
Hi Buybuy, I agree, and if you have a reliable estimate of earnings, then yes, of course. Barring that, book value is your only choice.
Hi Tony,
Thanks for your critical comments. They exemplify how prostate cancer, and screening for it, is misunderstood in this country.
The same does NOT apply. If you had a better test it would, but not now.
A biopsy is NOT a screening. But a biopsy does give a high rate of accuracy.
Those other cancer (screenings) you mention don't require a dangerous follow up step.
Those other cancers don't have as much variability as prostate cancer.
Yes, of course, if you had a high grade cancer, it would be preferable to detect it. But at what cost to society? Currently, the PSA threshold with higher sensitivity results in an unacceptable level of false positives, and is not used because of that. So this isn't even an option for screening right now, nor should it be. With other cancers, false positives don't matter as much.
Billing for lab test: the whole idea is that the Urologist doesn't need a lab, or licensing for it.
There are lots of research papers on this subject, and a more accurate screening test would be welcome.
Thank you Some, and also Str, Igor, Q, 007, and everyone below.
I really have to THANK the bashers, or anyone who has a critical thought. After all, if my investment thesis is inaccurate or illogical, I would like to know. (of course Animal Spirits trump logic in the short run)
And Prostate Cancer is SO misunderstood in this country, misunderstood by us healthcare consumers. Because we tend to believe what a Urologist says even though the Urologist has a huge conflict of interest.
Also: the people with personal experience with this disease have very telling information on the industry, even if it can be too much sometimes, but that's better than no information.
But thank you for the positive comments, and if there are negative comments in the future, thank you for those too.