PDL BioPharma Inc (NASDAQ:PDLI) has today moved ahead to pronounce its fourth quarter and yearly financial results and from the outlook seems the year ended December 31, 2017 was an outstanding one.
Total revenues of $320.1 million and $68.0 million were registered for the twelve and three months ended December 31, 2017, respectively. GAAP diluted EPS of $0.71 and $0.15 for the twelve and three months ended December 31, 2017, respectively. GAAP net income associated with shareholders of PDL of $110.7 million and $22.3 million for twelve and three months ended December 31, 2017, respectively.
The chief executive officer of PDL recently spoke to a number of news reporters who had set out to interview him after attending a business conference. He echoed several important points about the company and its most recent developments. According to him, 2017 had turned out to be an outstanding year for them as a company and they hoped that the same continues in future.
He outlined that they had witnessed a 31 percent rise in revenue and that is in close consideration of the previous year. Much has been done since 2012 one of them being the immense success in line with the establishment of a rich portfolio of income generating products and assets. They hoped they would serve as the perfect replacement for the expired Queen et al patents but of course not much could be said at this point in time. We just have to wait and see.
He delved deeper into the matter to outline that they looked forward to carrying on well in terms of being able to execute successfully on the company’s business model. The other goal will be try everything humanly possible to close the gap between the company’s book value per share and the share price.
A person familiar with the matter but who wanted to speak from a point of anonymity stated, “We expect the revenues from these assets, whose net book value is $5.54 per share, to fuel the building of our specialty pharma business. It’s important to note that $264 million, or 83 percent of our 2017 revenues, came from sources other than the Queen et al patents.”