100% sicher mit Protein Design Labs
Seite 1 von 2 Neuester Beitrag: 25.04.21 02:39 | ||||
Eröffnet am: | 10.08.05 15:46 | von: flexdax | Anzahl Beiträge: | 38 |
Neuester Beitrag: | 25.04.21 02:39 | von: Julianizwa | Leser gesamt: | 20.136 |
Forum: | Hot-Stocks | Leser heute: | 10 | |
Bewertet mit: | ||||
Seite: < 1 | 2 > |
PROTEIN DESIGN LABS
Symbol: PDLI
WKN: 883428
Seit März hat sich Die Aktie schon verdoppelt, und das mit einem Unbestechlichen Chart
Der Trend ist noch lange nicht unterbrochen.
Die Kursziele wurde nimmer wieder angepasst und liegen gerade zwischen
32 und 38 Euro
derzeit bekommt man das Papier noch für unter 22 Euro und
die Umsätze werden Steigen!!!
denn bisher übertrifft Protein Design Labs alle Erwartungen und ist für die Zukunft gut gewappnet
Ich muss nochmals betonen, dass es sich hier um eine sehr Ertägnischancenreiche und Kurseinsturzsichere Aktie handelt (für alle die von Fluxx genug haben(-:)
mfG
flexdax
http://www.ariva.de/chart/images/...123624800&cookies=HASH(0x9637484)
lg
sertralin19
INCLINE VILLAGE, Nev., Feb. 22, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ --
PDL BioPharma, Inc. (PDL) (Nasdaq: PDLI) today announced that the Company will release its fourth quarter and full year financial results for the period ended December 31, 2010 on Monday, February 28, 2011 after the markets close. PDL's management will host a conference call and webcast that day at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time to discuss the financial results.
Das "allerschlimmste" wäre die Liquidation, dann dürfte bis dahin auch genügend Cash angehäuft sein.
Fast noch wichtiger ist aber offenbar der Novartis-Deal. Die Berechtigung der Patente in Europa stehen damit offenbar nicht mehr in Frage, wenn ich das so überfliege und weiterer Cash Flow ist bei den Hauptumsatzträgern damit garantiert
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/...vidend-litigation-news-2011-02-28
Hier mal die Kurzversion:
4:02PM PDL BioPharma misses by $0.01, beats on revs (PDLI) 5.55 +0.69 : Reports Q4 (Dec) earnings of $0.20 per share, $0.01 worse than the Thomson Reuters consensus of $0.21; revenues rose 30.7% year/year to $76.1 mln vs the $74.1 mln consensus.
Also, etwas weniger Gewinn, etwas mehr Umsatz... Alles recht undramatisch
Nun ist aber aufgrund des Vergleiches nicht entschieden worden. PDL hat aber auf Zahlung und Vertragsbruch gegen Roche / Genentech geklagt.
Wenn das Patent Queens aber weiterhin rechtmäßig besteht, sollte dieser Prozess locker gewonnen werden und die seit Sommer 2010 fälligen Beträge inklusive Strafzinsen an PDL überwiesen werden.
Question: The bulk of PDL BioPharma's revenues are derived from royalty payments. The company generated more than $200 million in royalty revenue through the first six months of this year. Would you tell us what we should know about the Queen patent expirations that are scheduled for the next three years, and should PDL BioPharma be considered a liquidating asset as some have suggested?
Mr. McLaughlin: It's a good question. The last of the Queen et al. patents expire in December of 2014, but importantly, we'll continue to get paid royalties some period of time after that because royalties will still be due to PDL on product that is made before patent expiration and sold after patent expiration.
But to the point in your question, there is a time when the royalty obligations will expire, and they will no longer have to pay royalties based on the Queen et al. patents.
And so what we have been doing is, at the request of our shareholders, we've been taking some of the money from our royalty income, and using it to try and identify other revenue-generating assets. And what we said to our shareholders is this is an exercise we're going through in 2012 and 2013, and at the end of 2013 and beginning at 2014, we'll step back and say, 'OK, have we identified sufficient revenue-generating assets that it makes sense to continue PDL, or should we simply shut down the company beginning in 2015 and 2016 and distribute the cash that we receive from the current licensees under the Queen et al. patents and get that money out to our shareholders as quickly as possible so that we improve their returns?'
That's the decision we'll probably make in late 2013 or early 2014, so there is a fork in the road for the company at that point in time.
The Q4 2013/Q1 2014 "fork in the road" for PDLI includes upside from existing products already in the market -- the patents may expire, but McLaughlin explains that reducing overhead at that time to zero would create many quarters of expense free royalty income that could be used to pay off existing shareholders in a "special dividend" or the financial equivalent.
The CEO also states in this same interview that further potential upside exists with a yet unproven treatment for Alzheimer's:
We did have the potential for royalties on two Alzheimer's drugs, one being developed by a consortium of Pfizer (PFE) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), but it did not work. The other one being developed by Lilly demonstrated some provocative results on secondary end points, and they are actually meeting with the regulators to see what the path forward is on that one.
That is interesting, obviously, because Alzheimer's disease is a high, unmet medical need, but also because we have a know-how royalty that could run from 12.5 years from when it's first commercialized. This could be a blockbuster product if, in fact, the results are real and they can get FDA approval.
Approval will be based on those results or based on those results plus some additional trials. Unlike our Queen et al. patents, which expire at the end of December 2014, that know-how royalty would run, as I say, for 12.5 years from the time of first commercial launch.(emphasis added)
A recent quarterly conference call also provides another potentially significant source of future upside. In response to a question from Roy Buchanan of JMP Securities, McLaughlin states:
The second part is the action in Nevada is -- it's not patent case or a case involving the European patents. It's actually a contract case. So the question is whether or not when Genentech sent that [fax] at the behest of Roche and Novartis challenging the patents, whether that constituted a challenge to our 2003 settlement agreement and a settlement agreement is a contract and that's why I say this is breach of contract case, not a patent case.
And the question is under the settlement agreement, whether or not that fax constitutes a challenge which breaches a settlement agreement and that's what's before the court.
A positive resolution to this lawsuit for PDLI would also further support an enterprise value that has come under challenge from many analysts.
The estimated value of the future monetization of patents embedded in pharmaceutical and biotechnology stocks is a field for significant research and competing interpretations. A close technical and financial analysis is warranted for those companies currently paying high current dividend income with the potential for extreme upside. Investors would be well rewarded in increasing their portfolio exposure to this currently out-of-favor industry for those stocks that have significantly undervalued patent portfolios.