Seeking Alpha

Moral Investing's  Instablog

Moral Investing
Send Message
Private investor.
  • Deeper Research: Victoza TV Ad Highlights Arena's Belviq's Opportunity 40 comments
    Sep 24, 2013 10:03 AM | about stocks: ARNA

    There are different ways of presenting information. In this article, readers are presented another approach to the launch of Victoza's television campaign and how Arena investors have something to look forward to in the coming weeks and months ahead.

    As many have read, Victoza's television advertisement (view here) is a single example of what many pharmaceuticals eventually do: advertise on television. It is an injectable and like most drugs, the longest part of the commercial focuses on safety issues. The obvious relevance to the rest of the obesity sector is that it is currently not approved by the FDA for weight loss though it may cause some weight loss.

    The overlap with Victoza and Belviq is fascinating in that Belviq not only is FDA approved for weight loss, but carries the other advantage of helping people with diabetes.

    Are television advertisements important? Absolutely. Could you imagine if Eisai planned to launch its first television ad Superbowl weekend? Any and all means of advertising have their own impact. However, in our computer age it's been shown that a wide variety of media well beyond television can be highly effective such as internet advertising.

    What is wrong, however, is when a hit-piece is put out that incorrectly interprets Arena's announcement that direct marketing of Belviq has now started. I won't even link that article to give its author credence, but Arena was making an announcement about direct marketing starting, not simply announcing that their drug was being advertised in Oprah's magazine (which happens to have a wide readership).

    As long investors have been following Belviq's roll-out, there is a pervasive stream of articles particularly coming from SA that imply that there is only one way to evaluate Belviq's progress--that view coming from either shorts and/or a day-trader's mentality that buys and sells on targets is that Belviq's roll-out has been less than stellar. This view is continually presented based one person's opinion of a hockey-stick chart. Now of course anyone is entitled to an opinion just as my own article here is opinion based, but regarding Belviq's roll-out I am of a differing, opposing opinion.

    First, having day-traded myself (not Arena), I would simply argue that the current pps makes Arena a very strong buy for investors use to the volatility of the biotech sector. All stocks eventually retrace, so why anyone with a day-trader's mentality wouldn't be buying Arena simply doesn't make any sense.

    Second, day-trader talk aside, as a long I am not disappointed with the roll-out to date. Just last evening, I was perusing a few advertisements as Eisai is only at the front-end of direct market advertising.

    (click to enlarge)

    Two of the above are print media and one is internet media; I've also found other internet media as well (WebMD and there are others). No doubt in time a television will come. Meanwhile, excited responders of Belviq are telling their own stories.

    But Eisai's approach has not only been wise, but it has respected the legal directives of governing authorities in the U.S. During the first three months, Eisai targeted a select pool of endocrinologists and physicians most likely to prescribe Belviq. These doctors are the key gate-keepers that other physicians (like your family doctor) look to for first-year results. I know this for a fact having interview my own physician.

    Factually, people working in the biotech sector know that Eisai wasn't allowed to launch direct marketing until Belviq had been in the market for three full months. So what this means is that Eisai is on schedule. The free 15 day supply and $75 coupon has been another great advertising strategy to gain early market penetration.

    From a long investor viewpoint, Eisai is right on target with the roll-out of Belviq. Regarding that roll-out, I've been tracking Belviq's progress and have noted positive growth month-month with weekly fluctuations. As it stands, Belviq has either crossed the 5,000 weekly script mark if adjusted and/or is very close to doing so; meanwhile, refill traction has been steady and growing--in fact, a very close look at last week's Symphony numbers suggests it may be entering that new phase where it begins to pick up even more steam. Here is my own chart:

    (click to enlarge)

    What do you see? I see steady refill growth closing in on 1,000 scripts per week. I see steady new script growth and potentially signs of break-out growth in weeks 12 and 14 with Labor Day weekend in between. If this or next week's script growth IMS and/or Symphony new script growth breaks 5,000 (unadjusted) then this could be the beginning of an exponential move coming around the same time of the launch of direct market advertising.

    You see the above chart communicates a very different story. It represents that Belviq is on a steady course to overtake its current competition Qsymia. Factually, Belviq is not competing with Victoza's in the obesity space (maybe the diabetes space) and Belviq is also not competing with Contrave because it is not FDA approved. These are the facts.

    Finally, a chat board member on Yahoo has repeatedly published a very good comparison of Belviq's roll-out versus other popular drugs already on the market. This data is through week #14 (except where noted): credit to Sharoncl and Sharonconk on Yahoo chat board.

    Belviq 4,471
    Qsymia 2,490
    Bydureon 3,182 (week #9)
    Victoza 7,505
    Vascepa 2,415

    One last comment: May it be remembered that Eisai recently announced that they now expect 50% insurance coverage within the first year versus their earlier expectation of 30%. My question is: Why aren't SA authors covering this story? The market is yet to digest this news as well as the data I'm presenting in this article and others.

    I encourage any SA reader to FOLLOW ME since SA has chosen not publish my articles. You are welcome to copy this article, point a link to it, and/or post it elsewhere. Thanks!

    Disclosure: I am long ARNA.

    Additional disclosure: Unpublished instablog article. The author states that users are free to copy, paste, and share this resource.

    Stocks: ARNA
Back To Moral Investing's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (40)
Track new comments
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    Moral....

     

    "One last comment: May it be remembered that Eisai recently announced that they now expect 50% insurance coverage within the first year versus their earlier expectation of 30%. My question is: Why aren't SA authors covering this story? The market is yet to digest this news as well as the data I'm presenting in this article and others."

     

    I would suggest that you research this a little further.

     

    The initial projections from Eisai was to have 40% insurance coverage by December 31, 2013. The company started off at 30%. The target was to have 50% by the end of 2014. I covered that here:

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    In fact, I covered the fact that Eisai had moved up the 50% goal in this article on August 1st:

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    You see, I covered the subject already when the news was out and fresh. There is nothing new on the insurance front. The 50% by March 31st is news that is now 6 to 7 weeks old.
    24 Sep 2013, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • Moral Investing
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Mr. Osborne, thank you for that information. It certainly adds color to the strategic goals of Eisai. My compliments. Don't forget to become one of my FOLLOWERS! (smile)
    24 Sep 2013, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    Moral....

     

    I would like to ad another comment.

     

    When I first started tracking the sales, it was presented by Eisai that the company would achieve $150 million in sales by the end of the year.

     

    The initial weeks of my chart included two paths to that stated goal by Eisai. If you go back and look you will see that I modeled a more linear path as well as a hockey stick.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    After it became crystal clear that a linear path was not going to deliver $150 million I removed the linear line from the chart

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    What the chart did was offer up a couple of possible paths to $150 million in the 30 weeks that Eisai had targeted. With the more linear path having no chance, the ONLY way the target could be reched is to attain more exponential growth that would be depicted with a hockey stick.

     

    Remember.....It was not ME that came up with the $150 million. It was Eisai, and later confirmed by Arena. I simply modeled potential paths to get there.

     

    Now that Eisai has labeled the $150 million as hopeful aspirations should we forget the number? No. One reason the equity is down where it is is that the sales pace is not meeting the goals, and the goals are having to be adjusted downward. That is being reflected in the price of the equity.

     

    I wish either Arena or Eisai would give some form of guidance. Even conservative guidance is better than nothing, and will properly frame the expectations of the street.

     

    You would like me to shift the exponential segment of growth to the right. I agree that reality will show that the exponential phase starts later. The problem is how much later? That depends on the pace of educating doctors, the pace of getting insurance on board, the pace of advertising, and the pace of consumer acceptance. Is that $150 million by March 31? Is it June 30th? Is it it September 30th?

     

    The silence in terms of sales expectations from Arena and Eisai is deafening.

     

    A hockey stick does not last forever. It is the phase in growth where the biggest volume of adopters come on board. The steepness of the stick is determined by how quickly that happens. If insurance, doctors, advertising, and consumer acceptance all happen in a short timeframe, the stick can look very steep. If it is phased, it will be less steep. With no real transparency on any of this we are left to our own imagination as to when and how the growth will happen.

     

    I did not set the $150 million target. I simply modeled ways to get there.
    24 Sep 2013, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • Moral Investing
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Mr. Osborne, Kind of you but I need no convincing about where you derived $150M as I months ago verified what you are stating now. That's old news. Likewise it was good of you to abandon that linear model since, When does that [straight line] ever happen in the biotech space on the launch of a new drug? Of course reading your own dilemma about the hockey stick model I most certainly concur since steep can only be as steep as steep can be and any steeper than steep becomes basically straight up. In my case, I just happen to think that: (1) Eisai is executing, and (2) that Belviq sales are steadily increasing and will move exponentially into Q4 2013. Of course, that history is yet to be written.
    24 Sep 2013, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • Jim Stevens
    , contributor
    Comments (275) | Send Message
     
    Nobody set a $150M target. They threw out a number and people are still confused on whether it was for the end of this year or the end of Eisai's fiscal year. You should only have used a number that had been official guidance. But, no you chose to use that number and jam it down everyone's throat with your relentless restating of it in most of your articles.

     

    In addition, you continued (although you did finally stop) to call the net percentage of sales a royalty. Jack corrected one of the analysts when they said royalty. He corrected a shareholder at the shareholder's meeting when that person said royalty.

     

    In my opinion, just like the $150M, you wanted to jam whatever point which I believe is that you simply don't like either Eisai's or Arena's management.

     

    Moral Investing and Reasonable Risk have written much better articles on Belviq than you have. Your articles on the "CR" and the less than 24 hour ADP811 press release error only inflamed what were minor situations. Your response is that you were making the investor aware, not really, I can't prove it but I think your intent was to inflame Arena investors and arm Arena's bashers and haters with more ammunition to attack Belviq and Arena.
    25 Sep 2013, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • Abraxix
    , contributor
    Comments (348) | Send Message
     
    Looking back 10 years from now, the chart may look like a combination of the hockey stick and linear plots. Belviq represents a new class of highly selective agonists and the first brain penetrant agonist to hit the market since the 60's --- when a 5-HT2A receptor partial agonist compound was dispensed by the Merry Pranksters. Compared to generic drugs that hit the market, it will take a while longer for Belviq's properties to be trusted and fully appreciated.
    25 Sep 2013, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    Jim....

     

    You are now speaking utter BS.

     

    Mid may 2013 - Eisai CEO sets $200 million target by march 31, 2013

     

    June 7, 2013 - Eisai USA CEO states sales will be $150 million by the end of the year

     

    June 2013 - arena CEO states that Eisai projections are conservative when asked about Eisai projections.

     

    The companies are BOTH dead silent on official guidance. You want to take the company at its word when it is good, but want to dismiss numbers PRESENTED to Eisai shareholders at an annual meeting with reference to sakes.

     

    You are so close to jacks posterior that if he stopped suddenly you could conduct a visual prostate exam.

     

    I have stated many tomes, and qualify the term royalty with the qualifier of a percentage of net sales. You are simply a person with jacks phone number that runs around posting on message boards.

     

    I have nothing against arena or raising management. I simply do not call any of them my friends....unlike you.

     

    Your problem is you are emotionally attached. You are too close to management, and that is a dangerous thing.
    25 Sep 2013, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • WIS JOE
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    Sounds to me like just another unkept promise and not worth the time they spent on the announcement. It would take an act of God. If true ARNA will have 100% Insurance coverage just based on the reality of it being a less evasive drug. Not to hurt any feelings the drug Qusimia has little or no were to go, done, kaput, finned, and its existence only holds back legitimate drugs like ARNA. How it ever got approved is beyond explanation. What is more likily is that it will be pulled from the market do to it's side effects and future law suits and those long investers will lose there cash, reality bites. I have NO holding in VVUS short or long
    20 Oct 2013, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • WIS JOE
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    Great comment Jim, its about time somebody stood up for the truth about what was said. I cant help it but I always thought his articles leaned to shorting the stock. Though he said he was long, just my opinion.
    20 Oct 2013, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • PlainDealer
    , contributor
    Comments (91) | Send Message
     
    Moral Investing,

     

    Thank you for this well written, clear, and logical presentation of Belviq's sales and developing potential. It helps to have this sort of information available when evaluating Arena's value, both present and future.

     

    Cheers!
    24 Sep 2013, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • Moral Investing
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Thank you. My goal is to write objective based articles honed by the facts. For now, we can study weeks 0-14 and see for ourselves how Belviq is doing. We can also track the progress that Eisai is making and draw our own conclusions.
    24 Sep 2013, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • tgallo
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    very good article, keep up the good work.
    24 Sep 2013, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • Moral Investing
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Thank you. I am trying to add value.
    24 Sep 2013, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • yale1066
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    It certainly makes me question SA independence when you say that they will not publish your pieces. Have they stated any reasons why they will not publish your writing ?
    24 Sep 2013, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    yale....

     

    I can not answer for moral, but more often than not, an article that presents only a bullish stances and neglects to outline or address the risk side of the equation will not get published. The same holds true for an article that outlines only the short side and does not address potential upside risk to a short thesis.

     

    In point of fact, SA is seeking objectivity and not cheer leading or bashing.
    24 Sep 2013, 04:53 PM Reply Like
  • Moral Investing
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Ah, but let's us not jump to any conclusion but instead focus our attention on the information at hand.
    24 Sep 2013, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    Moral.....

     

    You made the statement that SA will not publish your articles. They typically give reasons why they will not publish. More often than not it relates to sourcing and balance.

     

    Looking at the article above, I would imagine that they are requesting that you address the risk side to bring more balance to the piece. Taking it a step further, you likely did not want to discuss the risk side, and thus opted not to make the additions that would make the piece publishable.

     

    Other issues that likely prevented publication:

     

    "What is wrong, however, is when a hit-piece is put out that incorrectly interprets Arena's announcement that direct marketing of Belviq has now started. I won't even link that article to give its author credence, but Arena was making an announcement about direct marketing starting, not simply announcing that their drug was being advertised in Oprah's magazine (which happens to have a wide readership)."

     

    Not a professional way to address something.

     

    "As long investors have been following Belviq's roll-out, there is a pervasive stream of articles particularly coming from SA that imply that there is only one way to evaluate Belviq's progress--that view coming from either shorts and/or a day-trader's mentality that buys and sells on targets is that Belviq's roll-out has been less than stellar. This view is continually presented based one person's opinion of a hockey-stick chart. Now of course anyone is entitled to an opinion just as my own article here is opinion based, but regarding Belviq's roll-out I am of a differing, opposing opinion."

     

    Another less than professional way of dealing with a subject.

     

    I would say, and Moral you can confirm, that the main issue holding back publication was that you were not addressing the risk side of the investment and refused to do so.

     

    24 Sep 2013, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • sts66
    , contributor
    Comments (1768) | Send Message
     
    You really expect us to swallow that explanation? Have you forgotten Marty Shkreli already? Or the out of nowhere sudden hit article on AVNR from an unknown firm listing Panama as it's address? I could list endless examples of SA publishing articles that are nowhere close to "fair and balanced", especially on the short side.
    24 Sep 2013, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    sts....

     

    This is a new day. I have had articles that SA would not publish because they do not offer both sides of an issue. This is particularly true when it comes to highly covered equities.

     

    An article does not need to be balanced, but they do like to see a bullish article discuss risk, and a bearish article discuss potential. This is particularly true when projections and opinion. By example, when Vivus had the CEO change, the negative did not require positive counteraction.

     

    For a write to say Belviq is going to sell good because I think so will not cut it. The same holds true for a writer with the opinion that Belviq will fail because he thinks so.
    24 Sep 2013, 07:59 PM Reply Like
  • yale1066
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    I have to agree sts66. I have read a number of articles on AFFY...specifically from two authors. Both seem to be on opposite sides of the spectrum...each strongly representing a "buy" or "sell" side opinion.
    25 Sep 2013, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • Logic Man
    , contributor
    Comments (156) | Send Message
     
    Moral's article has provided valuable script comparison data that no other author has compiled as well as providing charts separating both new scripts and renewal scripts. This is very valuable and useful information for people to use to make their own decisions and for SA not to print it but let countless other far less informational articles be published, IS a problem.
    25 Sep 2013, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • sts66
    , contributor
    Comments (1768) | Send Message
     
    When did this "new day at SA" come to be, assuming it has occurred? The AVNR hit article was published on 9/11, ironically:

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    25 Sep 2013, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    Yale....

     

    With all due respect to you and STS, I am simply informing you from my experience as someone that has had hundreds of articles published here on Seeking Alpha.

     

    In general you can have an article heavily weighted in one direction or the other. What SA wants ( in particular with heavily covered equities) is some statement from the opposing side. For example, a article can slam a company for 6 paragraphs and then offer a paragraph of the upside potential.

     

    From what I have read from Moral, I would venture to say that the reason his pieces do not get published is because he refuses to offer up any analysis on the risk side of the investment.

     

    Moral could put the debate to rest by telling readers why his articles were rejected. That would be the "moral" thing to do. Instead, he simply says SA will not publish his articles without any explanation. Then, when asked he is coy. He has every right to do as he desires, but the proper thing to do at this point would be to state why the article was rejected. SA always gives a reason
    25 Sep 2013, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    Logic....

     

    I agree that the chart is nice. I have been asked to discuss refills by several readers. At this point the refill information is just starting to provide relevant information. The reason is that the free trial creates instant refills, while the responder statistic stars after 12 weeks. This early data is a baseline, but what we want to try to assess is the percentage of responders. The data at this point simply can not really give a decent assessment. It is getting to that point, but not quite there yet.

     

    As to why this article was not published. I have stated the exact reasons why I suspect it. Moral could tell us all, but does not seem willing to do so. SA would have provided him with reasoning. As I stated, it is likely because he does not want to discuss any risks.

     

    It is a common problem with message board posters when they try to become published. They want to, more than anything, present a totally positive or totally negative stance. More often than not it is because they are either so enamored with their position that they simply dismiss anything that is counter. Sometimes it is because they have a "following" on message boards due to their very one sided posts. To shift from that would be to ruin a message board persona that they have spent hundreds or thousands of hours developing. There are also some that are much more accepted on a message board than they are in their own real life. They do not want to ruin that, as it has now become a major characteristic of their existence. Anyway....the solution is that moral could, with ease, say why his pits was rejected.
    25 Sep 2013, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • tgallo
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    it must be a new day since 9/11/2013, SA realized they were blatantly lying to its readers, and felt a tinge of remorse. All the writers had group hug and promised to write fair and balanced articles so investors could make realistic decisions on their investments.

     

    (sarcasm)
    26 Sep 2013, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • tgallo
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    Spencer....
    I would prefer if they there were writers, bloggers, (whatever they are called), that were either totally positive and others totally negative. II feel it would give investors a clear picture of a equity after reading the opposing sides. The lukewarm approach is like looking at gray walls. No substance. I don't want authors to give me both pictures, I need their picture, even if their opinion is crazy.

     

    I also contacted arena yesterday, thanking them for the life changing drug Belviq, will power in a bottle. To my surprise, ir contacted me 5 mins later. Then eisai contacted me later that evening, I was not expecting that. Excellent companies. weight loss with belviq has simply been too easy, under 1200 calories a day. I have never eaten under 2500 calories as an adult.
    26 Sep 2013, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    tgallo...

     

    I like the humor....

     

    SA has, for quite some time, asked writer to include a section regarding the "opposing view" on articles. That does not mean that the article will be balanced....it simply means that the reader will see the risk side (long or short) to the thesis of an article. It is something that is reasonable, yet there are those that do not want to address the opposing side to their thesis in print.

     

    Moral could easily step up and state why his article was rejected. Thus far he has not done so.
    26 Sep 2013, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    tgallo...

     

    What I am referring to is something as simple as the example below.

     

    "The risk side of the equation is that sales could take longer to develop than originally expected. This could be due to a number of factors including doctors willingness to script, insurance coverage, cost to consumer, or net sales being lower which would impact the share of monies Arena receives."

     

    Great to hear that you had a good experience with the company and are seeing success with Belviq.
    26 Sep 2013, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • Moral Investing
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Mr. Osborne makes me laugh quite honestly and I state that with a warm smile. He assumes a lot and knows even less. I won't cast any disparaging comments in SA's direction. I was only stating for viewers to know that SA has chosen not to publish my articles. Mr. Osborne's repeated diatribes are nothing short of comical. Hopefully my instablogs add value.
    26 Sep 2013, 10:21 AM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    Moral...

     

    You can chuckle., but the question that was posed to you is relevant in that you made an assertion that SA would not publish your article. When asked why you became coy.

     

    SA does give you reasoning, and it would be quite simple for you to supply that reasoning. For you to supply that reasoning would not be disparaging, and would in fact clear up the situation.

     

    You see.....and perhaps you want this to be the case...some readers jump to the assumption that SA did not publish your article simply because they have an Anti-Arena agenda. In my experience, SA does not care whether you are bullish or bearish.

     

    Moral, if you would be so kind as to offer up the reasoning that SA provided to you for not publishing the article it would be information that could put the conspiracy theories to rest.

     

    The fact that you do not want to do so is suggestive that you want to hide the reasoning.
    26 Sep 2013, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • sts66
    , contributor
    Comments (1768) | Send Message
     
    "I would prefer if they there were writers, bloggers, (whatever they are called), that were either totally positive and others totally negative. II feel it would give investors a clear picture of a equity after reading the opposing sides."

     

    There's a huge problem with that - for lesser covered equities, many times there is only one author here writing about them, so the rebuttal never comes, reader only gets one POV. Perhaps that is what SO is trying to say?
    26 Sep 2013, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    sts....

     

    In my experience as a contributor to SA, the most common reason for an article to get rejected is that it does not offer any counterbalance to the point.

     

    More often than not the rejection will state something like this:

     

    "Thank you for the submission. To consider this for publication we would like you to add some color on the risk side of this investment"

     

    Usually it is pretty simple and to the point.

     

    Another point, though this is just my opinion...it is more difficult for someone using an alias to get published.

     

    Though Arena investors would love a piece that tells about every positive aspect of the company, SA is not in the business of being an infomercial for a company.

     

    26 Sep 2013, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • Asta14
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Spencer
    Do you really believe what you just said about SA changing and being a new day when they pulled the article
    Enteromedics : Arena 2.0? within minutes of publishing it because it was too positive of an article?
    25 Sep 2013, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • Wetsu40
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    SV - dont let Spence hold you down. Nice work
    25 Sep 2013, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • Wetsu40
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    SV - Well done, thanks
    25 Sep 2013, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • yale1066
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    The information I want to access as a reader of SA is mostly factual. We all have opinions, but in my mind, opinions become much more weighty when constructed around a solid foundation of checkable facts.

     

    What I see missing in the analysis of the financial future of Arena/Belviq, and the actual stock price itself, is a comprehensive one-to-one historical comparison with other "blockbuster" drugs from the recent past. It certainly may be a difficult task compounded by the notion that Belviq seems to be revolutionary in how it works within the human body. I think this is where most on Wall Street misunderstood the potential of Belviq. We all can't be scientists.

     

    Nevertheless, an article that I envision, may take multiple authors, since I am not aware of any individual who is an unbiased expert in neurobiology, obesity, pharmaceutical marketing, finances, and also a Wall Street daytrader.

     

    If there is such a godlike figure, I would pray that he writes an article for SA.
    25 Sep 2013, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    Yale....

     

    Look up sales figures on Viagra.

     

    You will see that they blow away what Belviq is doing.

     

    If belviq's launch is "blockbuster" the how does that line up with terrible sales of Qsymia? Does that make Qsymia somewhere between one third and one half of a blockbuster?

     

    Too many arena investors and too many vivus investors get so caught up in making excuses that they fail to see what will drive this. We need insurance coverage. The lack of it limits a path to blockbuster in a shorter timeframe
    25 Sep 2013, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • sts66
    , contributor
    Comments (1768) | Send Message
     
    Comparing Viagra to Belviq is pointless - Viagra was given away in huge sample packs to all comers (haha) that rapidly increased sales, while B is a S4 drug that cannot be sampled, must get a scrip. Big diff.
    26 Sep 2013, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • Spencer Osborne
    , contributor
    Comments (8352) | Send Message
     
    sts....

     

    The issue is gross sales and "blockbuster" status. Blockbuster is $1 billion of sales in a year. It is the same for every drug out there, regardless of the hurdles that face the drug.

     

    Early on "blockbuster" was assigned to both Qsym,ia and Belviq. Qsymia's launch failed to reach that status, and thus far Belviq is demonstrating that it will not get there in the near term.

     

    Viagra did face the challenge of no insurance coverage like Belviq and Qsymia.

     

    Some perspective.

     

    Viagra made its debut on April 10, 1998. In its first 3 months there were 2.7 million prescriptions filled. The sales figure was $411 million.

     

    At the 3 month mark for Belviq prescriptions are estimated at about 43,000. Gross sales (to consumers) are estimated at $7.6 million

     

    Script levels for Viagra are ahead of Belviq by a factor of 63

     

    Gross sales are ahead by a factor of over 50
    26 Sep 2013, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • yale1066
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    I would certainly agree with you that Belviq can not be classified as a "blockbuster" drug as of yet. I would simply like to see an apple to apple comparisons with Belviq with other drugs that have or had a similar numerical target market (and not necessarily connected with obesity) and attempt to hypothesize the future for Belviq. In my opinion, I really don't think that Qsymia can be used to compare Belviq (since the build-in restrictions placed upon it by the FDA, lack of marketing, etc)
    26 Sep 2013, 03:27 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.