2026 Q1 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
21 päivää sitten
Tarjoustasot
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53 | - | - | ||
| 3 134 | - | - | ||
| 1 550 | - | - | ||
| 400 | - | - | ||
| 400 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Ostaneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 58 822 | 58 822 | 0 | 0 |
Myyneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 58 822 | 58 822 | 0 | 0 |
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 26.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 27.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 27.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 27.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 27.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 22.5.2025 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
·1 päivä sitten · MuokattuSeriously, I said it on the way up a few days ago too... Can we try to have a sensible debate here instead of throwing insults and making nasty comments to each other? This applies to both those of us who think the price should be higher and those who think it should be lower. I asked a few days ago and I'm asking again. Can we agree that rNPV is a sensible model for clarifying what the company should be worth? If not, what alternative model do you suggest? If we agree on that, what assumptions do you think one should / should not take into account? As I wrote below, I have made a proposal for an rNPV calculator that is based on Edison's valuation. (disclaimer, I don't know their model and have used AI to create my model, it's probably not 100%, but let's discuss it so it gets better) Link to the calculator is here: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/cdcb9883-3342-4f6e-a1e5-51f3ef25fd1a If we can discuss the different variables in such a valuation together, we should be able to get closer to an understanding of what we think the company should be worth and why we might disagree with the valuation. I believe it will give us all greater understanding, and better patience with others' viewpoints. Those who talk the price up or down without contributing to this can go take a hike for all I care. Then you are here to pump or dump and your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. Looking forward to responses, let the debate begin!·23 min sittenThanks for a really well-thought-out answer, this is the kind of input we actually learn something from, so it took some work between the games last night to build it in. First: good that we agree on the model choice. rNPV is not perfect, but I can't think of anything better for a company at this stage, so we end up in the same place there. You also have a good point on peak sales. $2.8 billion for CS1 and $1.7 billion for CS014 are in practice top-down estimates based on the PAH/PH-ILD market and sotatercept (Winrevair) as a reference, no one really knows this. Edison itself has used closer to $2 billion for CS1 in previous notes. I have deliberately left both peak sales and PoS as free fields precisely so one can enter their own, more conservative view, so here you can just turn down the numbers and see what happens. Those are the two variables the value is by far most sensitive to. Your best question was about cash burn and dilution, and there I just have to be honest: in the first version I modeled neither. The "R&D cost" fields you saw are just development costs per candidate up to an out-licensing agreement – i.e., not the company's actual operations/burn, and without any dilution mechanism. Like Edison's own model, I divided the equity value by the current number of shares and implicitly assumed that the pipeline is financed for free for us shareholders. That's standard, but it's optimistic, especially when they exited Q1 with 70.9 MSEK in cash and themselves flag a need for new financing in H2. So I have rebuilt the calculator quite significantly: 1) Separate module for financing, runway, and dilution. It calculates how long the cash lasts, how much they need to raise to bridge to CS1 Phase IIb data (topline ~Q4 2028), and what an issuance below fair value does to value per share. The convertible (175 MSEK at SEK10) is included as an on/off switch. You now get a diluted fair value next to the Edison figure – and the gap between the two is simply the dilution cost. 2) Licensing agreement that solves runway. You indirectly asked for it, and it's really the core of the entire financing question. Cereno has been active in partnering in Asia this spring (Tokyo and Shanghai) and has a clearly communicated focus on securing a local/regional/global deal, so a not completely unrealistic "bridge" scenario is a regional out-licensing of CS1, with an upfront in the order of $30–50m (~300–460 MSEK) plus milestones and royalty. With ~200 MSEK in annual burn, an upfront of ~400 MSEK provides approximately two years of extra runway – i.e., enough to get past topline in 2028 without having to raise dilutively before that trigger. The model allows non-dilutive upfront to fill the financing gap first, and only the remainder needs to be raised as an issuance. (Important detail: I do not add this upfront to the rNPV, as the deal economics are already included per asset – here it only counts for runway/dilution, to avoid double-counting.) 3) Bear / Base / Bull buttons. To make your pessimistic starting point easy: Bear sets lower PoS and peak sales, 15% discounting, no deal, full issuance at a weak SEK3.80 and convertible that converts – maximum dilution. Bull the opposite, where a regional licensing agreement solves the runway and the dilution almost disappears. Base = Edison. Also added a version history tab so one can see what has changed between the versions – useful when we share scenarios back and forth. My recommendation: click on Bear, turn down peak sales to your own level, save it with a name and share the code here. I am genuinely curious how low you end up – and if we agree that there is still significant upside even in the gloomy case. Anyway, thanks again. This made the tool clearly better.
1 päivä sitten1 päivä sittenSo, how is the price development holding up guys?
·12.6.the skeptics are quiet, I thought the price would hit 1 before it came up again ?
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
21 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
- ·1 päivä sitten · MuokattuSeriously, I said it on the way up a few days ago too... Can we try to have a sensible debate here instead of throwing insults and making nasty comments to each other? This applies to both those of us who think the price should be higher and those who think it should be lower. I asked a few days ago and I'm asking again. Can we agree that rNPV is a sensible model for clarifying what the company should be worth? If not, what alternative model do you suggest? If we agree on that, what assumptions do you think one should / should not take into account? As I wrote below, I have made a proposal for an rNPV calculator that is based on Edison's valuation. (disclaimer, I don't know their model and have used AI to create my model, it's probably not 100%, but let's discuss it so it gets better) Link to the calculator is here: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/cdcb9883-3342-4f6e-a1e5-51f3ef25fd1a If we can discuss the different variables in such a valuation together, we should be able to get closer to an understanding of what we think the company should be worth and why we might disagree with the valuation. I believe it will give us all greater understanding, and better patience with others' viewpoints. Those who talk the price up or down without contributing to this can go take a hike for all I care. Then you are here to pump or dump and your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. Looking forward to responses, let the debate begin!·23 min sittenThanks for a really well-thought-out answer, this is the kind of input we actually learn something from, so it took some work between the games last night to build it in. First: good that we agree on the model choice. rNPV is not perfect, but I can't think of anything better for a company at this stage, so we end up in the same place there. You also have a good point on peak sales. $2.8 billion for CS1 and $1.7 billion for CS014 are in practice top-down estimates based on the PAH/PH-ILD market and sotatercept (Winrevair) as a reference, no one really knows this. Edison itself has used closer to $2 billion for CS1 in previous notes. I have deliberately left both peak sales and PoS as free fields precisely so one can enter their own, more conservative view, so here you can just turn down the numbers and see what happens. Those are the two variables the value is by far most sensitive to. Your best question was about cash burn and dilution, and there I just have to be honest: in the first version I modeled neither. The "R&D cost" fields you saw are just development costs per candidate up to an out-licensing agreement – i.e., not the company's actual operations/burn, and without any dilution mechanism. Like Edison's own model, I divided the equity value by the current number of shares and implicitly assumed that the pipeline is financed for free for us shareholders. That's standard, but it's optimistic, especially when they exited Q1 with 70.9 MSEK in cash and themselves flag a need for new financing in H2. So I have rebuilt the calculator quite significantly: 1) Separate module for financing, runway, and dilution. It calculates how long the cash lasts, how much they need to raise to bridge to CS1 Phase IIb data (topline ~Q4 2028), and what an issuance below fair value does to value per share. The convertible (175 MSEK at SEK10) is included as an on/off switch. You now get a diluted fair value next to the Edison figure – and the gap between the two is simply the dilution cost. 2) Licensing agreement that solves runway. You indirectly asked for it, and it's really the core of the entire financing question. Cereno has been active in partnering in Asia this spring (Tokyo and Shanghai) and has a clearly communicated focus on securing a local/regional/global deal, so a not completely unrealistic "bridge" scenario is a regional out-licensing of CS1, with an upfront in the order of $30–50m (~300–460 MSEK) plus milestones and royalty. With ~200 MSEK in annual burn, an upfront of ~400 MSEK provides approximately two years of extra runway – i.e., enough to get past topline in 2028 without having to raise dilutively before that trigger. The model allows non-dilutive upfront to fill the financing gap first, and only the remainder needs to be raised as an issuance. (Important detail: I do not add this upfront to the rNPV, as the deal economics are already included per asset – here it only counts for runway/dilution, to avoid double-counting.) 3) Bear / Base / Bull buttons. To make your pessimistic starting point easy: Bear sets lower PoS and peak sales, 15% discounting, no deal, full issuance at a weak SEK3.80 and convertible that converts – maximum dilution. Bull the opposite, where a regional licensing agreement solves the runway and the dilution almost disappears. Base = Edison. Also added a version history tab so one can see what has changed between the versions – useful when we share scenarios back and forth. My recommendation: click on Bear, turn down peak sales to your own level, save it with a name and share the code here. I am genuinely curious how low you end up – and if we agree that there is still significant upside even in the gloomy case. Anyway, thanks again. This made the tool clearly better.
- 1 päivä sitten1 päivä sittenSo, how is the price development holding up guys?
- ·12.6.the skeptics are quiet, I thought the price would hit 1 before it came up again ?
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53 | - | - | ||
| 3 134 | - | - | ||
| 1 550 | - | - | ||
| 400 | - | - | ||
| 400 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Ostaneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 58 822 | 58 822 | 0 | 0 |
Myyneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 58 822 | 58 822 | 0 | 0 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 26.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 27.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 27.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 27.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 27.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 22.5.2025 |
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
21 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 26.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 27.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 27.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 27.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 27.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 22.5.2025 |
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
- ·1 päivä sitten · MuokattuSeriously, I said it on the way up a few days ago too... Can we try to have a sensible debate here instead of throwing insults and making nasty comments to each other? This applies to both those of us who think the price should be higher and those who think it should be lower. I asked a few days ago and I'm asking again. Can we agree that rNPV is a sensible model for clarifying what the company should be worth? If not, what alternative model do you suggest? If we agree on that, what assumptions do you think one should / should not take into account? As I wrote below, I have made a proposal for an rNPV calculator that is based on Edison's valuation. (disclaimer, I don't know their model and have used AI to create my model, it's probably not 100%, but let's discuss it so it gets better) Link to the calculator is here: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/cdcb9883-3342-4f6e-a1e5-51f3ef25fd1a If we can discuss the different variables in such a valuation together, we should be able to get closer to an understanding of what we think the company should be worth and why we might disagree with the valuation. I believe it will give us all greater understanding, and better patience with others' viewpoints. Those who talk the price up or down without contributing to this can go take a hike for all I care. Then you are here to pump or dump and your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. Looking forward to responses, let the debate begin!·23 min sittenThanks for a really well-thought-out answer, this is the kind of input we actually learn something from, so it took some work between the games last night to build it in. First: good that we agree on the model choice. rNPV is not perfect, but I can't think of anything better for a company at this stage, so we end up in the same place there. You also have a good point on peak sales. $2.8 billion for CS1 and $1.7 billion for CS014 are in practice top-down estimates based on the PAH/PH-ILD market and sotatercept (Winrevair) as a reference, no one really knows this. Edison itself has used closer to $2 billion for CS1 in previous notes. I have deliberately left both peak sales and PoS as free fields precisely so one can enter their own, more conservative view, so here you can just turn down the numbers and see what happens. Those are the two variables the value is by far most sensitive to. Your best question was about cash burn and dilution, and there I just have to be honest: in the first version I modeled neither. The "R&D cost" fields you saw are just development costs per candidate up to an out-licensing agreement – i.e., not the company's actual operations/burn, and without any dilution mechanism. Like Edison's own model, I divided the equity value by the current number of shares and implicitly assumed that the pipeline is financed for free for us shareholders. That's standard, but it's optimistic, especially when they exited Q1 with 70.9 MSEK in cash and themselves flag a need for new financing in H2. So I have rebuilt the calculator quite significantly: 1) Separate module for financing, runway, and dilution. It calculates how long the cash lasts, how much they need to raise to bridge to CS1 Phase IIb data (topline ~Q4 2028), and what an issuance below fair value does to value per share. The convertible (175 MSEK at SEK10) is included as an on/off switch. You now get a diluted fair value next to the Edison figure – and the gap between the two is simply the dilution cost. 2) Licensing agreement that solves runway. You indirectly asked for it, and it's really the core of the entire financing question. Cereno has been active in partnering in Asia this spring (Tokyo and Shanghai) and has a clearly communicated focus on securing a local/regional/global deal, so a not completely unrealistic "bridge" scenario is a regional out-licensing of CS1, with an upfront in the order of $30–50m (~300–460 MSEK) plus milestones and royalty. With ~200 MSEK in annual burn, an upfront of ~400 MSEK provides approximately two years of extra runway – i.e., enough to get past topline in 2028 without having to raise dilutively before that trigger. The model allows non-dilutive upfront to fill the financing gap first, and only the remainder needs to be raised as an issuance. (Important detail: I do not add this upfront to the rNPV, as the deal economics are already included per asset – here it only counts for runway/dilution, to avoid double-counting.) 3) Bear / Base / Bull buttons. To make your pessimistic starting point easy: Bear sets lower PoS and peak sales, 15% discounting, no deal, full issuance at a weak SEK3.80 and convertible that converts – maximum dilution. Bull the opposite, where a regional licensing agreement solves the runway and the dilution almost disappears. Base = Edison. Also added a version history tab so one can see what has changed between the versions – useful when we share scenarios back and forth. My recommendation: click on Bear, turn down peak sales to your own level, save it with a name and share the code here. I am genuinely curious how low you end up – and if we agree that there is still significant upside even in the gloomy case. Anyway, thanks again. This made the tool clearly better.
- 1 päivä sitten1 päivä sittenSo, how is the price development holding up guys?
- ·12.6.the skeptics are quiet, I thought the price would hit 1 before it came up again ?
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53 | - | - | ||
| 3 134 | - | - | ||
| 1 550 | - | - | ||
| 400 | - | - | ||
| 400 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Ostaneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 58 822 | 58 822 | 0 | 0 |
Myyneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 58 822 | 58 822 | 0 | 0 |