% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Affymax, Inc. Message Board

  • dennis.hawaii Aug 29, 2013 1:36 AM Flag

    Here is the answer

    Ok, I'm going to try to keep this as simple as possible. This is how the Baird analyst calculated the numbers in the Figure 2 chart that today's SA article presented. He was using a TIME ADJUSTED number, ie, he ANNUALIZED the ratio, which will give you the numbers in his chart. So, 60 divided by 260,000 equals 0.000238 which in turn is divided by 8.5, since this is over a period of 8.5 years, to get the annualized figure of 0.00002715. However, doing the Omontys number, it seems the Baird analyst took the time ration of 10/12 instead of the number 1, which would be a whole year as listed on his chart (March '12 to Feb '13), which means he used the time frame of 10 months, not the whole year, which I do not know why, since March to Feb is one year? Anyways, if you do the ration, it comes out pretty close, but if you use 3 deaths instead of 5, it becomes only about 5 times not 9 times Epo's death rate.
    However, doing this type of ANNUALIZED calculation is very VERY misleading since you are assuming that one drug will have the same results just based on 10 months versus another being based on 8.5 years. Statistics can be skewed to favor any which way the statistician wants to skew the numbers. In other words, this is like saying a mutual fund had a 3 great months, so if the fund manager annualized those 3 greats months, which is what the Baird anaylyst is doing, the ANNUALIZED return would be incredible. But as we all know, this is BS, much like the whole SA article today is BS.

    Thank you, and if you have any questions, see me after class.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
0.0853+0.0003(+0.35%)Feb 5 3:53 PMEST