As far as I know, our interests are aligned with those of Baupost and other institutional shareholders. If they let it pass, it's because they think it will serve their interests, and so .... ours. Leave it up to them then.
I forgot the AAPL options expiration is on Friday, October 31, 2014... AAPL's price action may still have some overall market repercussions to come before the end of the month. There is still that 'gap'.... LOL!!!
haha, YEA RIGHT! Keep Blaming President Bush 6 years later!
Again you are missing my main question so I'll restate it, this time slightly differently, and even put asterisks around it:
*****What are the specific reasons for why you bought 2,000 shares of Keryx stock if you have so many problems with the product?******
The FDA response is as follows, "Iron absorption from Ferric Citrate [Zerenex] may lead to excessive elevations in iron stores. Increases in serum ferritin and transferrin saturation (TSAT) levels were observed in clinical trials. In a 56-week safety and efficacy trial in which concomitant use of Ferric Citrate and IV iron was permitted, 55 (19%) of patients treated with Ferric Citrate had a ferritin level [greater than] 1500 ng/mL as compared with 13 (9%) of patients treated with active control." The FDA continued by advising doctors that patients treated with Zerenex may require a reduction in dose or discontinuation of IV iron.
I am still not very clear as to what you are asking, but Zerenex is not an end all be all with respect to iron. In all comments scientific and otherwise, the implications have always been that Z should reduce the use of IV iron and ESA, not eliminate use. In a subpopulation of patients, IV iron will be required; in other patients IV iron will not be required and yet a third population stores will increase above safe levels. So the question is why were any of the patients permitted to be on IV iron if Z was solving the problem in and of itself? Clearly additional iron was required. That being said, the treatment was clearly not properly dosed because patients needed to be removed due to excessively high iron. The more interesting question is why did the physicians not eliminate the IV iron rather than pull them from the trial? Is it possible that when they exceeded a certain iron limit, the trial dictated removal...don't know. Clearly there was a 3rd option in my scenario that I missed.
The FDA specifically states that when patients were on both, they reached excessive levels, but they also state "Iron absorption from Ferric Citrate [Zerenex] may lead to excessive elevations in iron stores." The take home for me is that iron can be an issue and must be monitored whether or not on IV ... but it is clearly not a deal breaker.
With all due respect, I am not sure I buy that argument. OTOH, they may need to offer such lucrative employment offers to entice experienced phosphate binder salespeople from competitors that have established relationships with health care providers of phosphate binders...hopefully.
it increases the incentive for them to sell, which benefits shareholders. The general public barely owns any of the company so our votes don't really matter, but i have no issue if executives get richer as long as shareholders do as well.
Jenny, below is one of my posts on Sept 15:
"Why is the warning having an impact on ESRD? If approved, the warning label will continue whether or not treatment is for ESRD or CKD. My point here is that the FDA has, with resounding consistency, distanced itself from approving any treatments for CKD. Why then would they unconditionally approve a treatment using a drug that already has assigned to it a warning label? It is more trying to understand he mentality of the FDA and what would prompt them to change positions?
The last trial data I remember (P2) for CKD indicated that by 24 weeks (maybe 36 weeks) the ferritin levels were up by 20-22% relative to baseline values. While this is not astounding by any stretch and for the most part relatively positive news, by the time the trial got out to 48 weeks, the numbers magically dropped to baseline again. This seems rather odd to me. One can interpret this two ways and if you have information one way or another I would appreciate you filling me in; 1) that after time, the ferritin levels normalize for some reason; or 2) those with high ferritin and TSAT levels were removed from the trial leaving only 35% of the original patient load on the trial i.e. those patients whose levels did not increase significantly. I think this matter will be rendered academic (one way or another) when, as you say, the P3 data is released. But for now, I am indeed skeptical when 65% of the patients had to be removed and then basing assumptions on efficacy and tolerability on the remaining 35%. So where you saw no flags, I saw a huge flag in the reduction of the number of patients remaining on the trial as the TSAT and ferritin levels increased."
If it is this post to which you are referring, I am not clear at to what your question is regarding these comments. I Indicated in my comments that the jury was out and that we would have to wait for the final data. If this is not the post, I will have to go back and search again.
See part 2
I laugh at everyone here that will cut their nose off to spite their face by voting no on the additional options. I also laugh when people say Baupost Group and Black Rock will vote no. The stock will mainly be used to grant options to new employees over a period of years and they will vest over a period of years. If you do not offer options to new employees, then you get the dumbest people for the job! How is that going to work for your share price. This is a standard business decision and I bet that it passes easily. The only people that would vote no are Shorts or extremely dimwitted folks who should invest in mutual funds.
Who said anything about a "reply" URA JOKE MORON
Voted NO. Why should any person be given extra compensation for doing a job that are paid well
to do? Ron makes more money in one year than I made in my life time. Some people need to
get real and not live in fantasy land. tech trader
FYI I have nothing to add to the NCE discussion, as I am not a biochemist. I am an investor who saw the potential in KERX and "Z" and invested. I am no longer in the stock for the time being until more clarity comes in regards to sales/partnerships,etc. So, I just wanted you to know that I am neither an optimist or a pessimist in regards to this stock. I will be checking in and posting until I re-establish a position later. I posted my opinion, and I do not feel as if that is "out of bounds". However, I apologize for calling you "arrogant". Although, I am certain it won't be the last time I feel that the word describes your posts at times. It is possible that you are not arrogant yourself, but your posts are. Over and out!
What I'm driving at is what you didn't really respond to--though I do appreciate you taking some time to provide a bit of clarification on other issue. I'll paste in my main point, in hopes you can address it directly and as thoroughly you did in defending your other comments. Here:
"You say you own 2,000 shares, and I'll believe you. I'll also appreciate any argument that seems balanced and realistic. But, since you've been so forthcoming in why the jury is still out on K's success overall, I'd love to see you state your case for why you own shares and believe in K, given your above issues.
Put simply: If I had as many fundamental questions as you do, and if I were showcasing them on a social marketing page, I would not be an investor, but a short-seller."
On the iron issue, you made the comments about the iron absorption issue/patients dropping out of the study around Sept 15, well after FDA approval. So it's not exactly like you predicted that was coming....also the warning was against using IV iron at the same time as FC and not against FC on its own. Further the reason some patients dropped out is exactly for that reason...they had been using IV iron along with FC and so their counts were too high.
I'd appreciate response from you to my main question above, as I think I, along with others on the board, are trying to determine how reliable you are--with hopes that your intentions are in fact good ones.
I give my reasons for doubt. I do not doubt the product but issues related to the product. The NCE, ND-CKD approval and iron overload. Two of these have come to pass as I suspected they might going into this investment. No drug will ever go through trial to approval unencumbered by pitfalls. But keeping my eye on the prize the good still outweighs the bad so I have remained invested.
Now, that approach to investing may not suit your form of investing and DD. You maybe one that ignores the obvious if it does not agree with a positive outcome. You maybe one who reads my comments on the NCE and considers them irrelevant because the CEO said something to the contrary. It matters not to me. I find these issues and make my comments, not to dissuade or to change but to inform. People are welcome to make their own decisions as to how they want to treat my comments. But calling me a short or a basher, is simply unfair and more importantly, it only makes those who say these things feel better about themselves and their investments, but does not change what I have said.
This acts just like a dilution and share price will drop, though this is less than 10% of the outstanding shares, so it won't make a huge difference. And it's a not a negative dilution, they aren't issuing more shares to keep the lights on, so it's not a huge deal IMO.
Agreed. If I have offended you or any one, it was probably because of being passionate when I take a stance. For that I apologize to you as I did to Stockathlete a few days ago.
As you and many are aware, I am one who does not look for a silver lining. When investing that can and often does blind you. I look for the crack in the armor and then determine if that crack is something I can live with or if it is a deal breaker. For me, (and in my opinion) the NCE is just such a crack in the armor, but not a deal breaker. I also feel it is important to bring to the masses what I have learned...right or wrong. If there are those who feel me a quack and have no respect for my opinions, that's OK. But I at least feel I have fulfilled the purpose of this board which it to bring to light the bad with the good, the positive with the negative. I would just prefer having someone tell me I am wrong backed by some DD i.e. incorrect statements I made some time ago regarding homeopathic treatments, rather than to resort to calling me a short and a basher because I disagree.
I do indeed tend to challenge the overly optimistic...only because I do not think this is safe position...it clouds the judgement. I am wrong for doing that to be sure. If there are those who want to take this position, it is their right to do so. But, I may be just as guilty being a cockeyed realist as others are being a cockeyed optimist.
Good luck and again my apologies if I offended you or anyone.