Even if we agree that the drug will initially have a narrow label, that is still enough to make this a huge winner.

Any drug that sells $1 billion a year is a block buster drug.  Gross margins on such drugs, particularly small molecule ones must be north of 95%, I am guessing (I have seen 80% margins, but the other 15% is for marketing).  For Apabetalone, let's assume they price it at $4,000/patient/year.  To get to a $1 billion, you need a patient population of 250,000 to take it.  Is that possible?

Every year, in the US alone, 795k people have a stroke, of which 140k die.  So the US stroke population that can be used as a starting point is 645k. Out of these Let's say 50% are diabetic (about a third of the population is diabetic or pre-diabetic, so 50% is not that draconian an assumption).  So from stroke alone, you get a possible 322k possible patients.

Every year in the US alone, 610k people die of heart disease.  So the proportion who have heart disease significant enough to be prescribed Apabetalone must be easily 250k a year.

Or to use an another proxy, if people have a stroke or heart attack or stent put in, they must be getting blood thinners.  That adds up to 2 million people in the US alone.

This arm waving exercise is not rigorous, obviously...but my point is that an addressable market of 250k patients is very easy to get to, if you look at just stroke and heart attacks, or use blood thinners as a proxy.  

In short, even if the drug is approved for relatively narrow populations, the size involved is big enough to start off this drug at a billion dollar sales.  

That easily justifies a minimum $20 share price on RVX, if not higher.  And that is not even looking at CKD, which I think is worth another $10 easy.  

To me, the question is whether Mr Market will agree with what we are assuming.