...Now that the "unambiguously" summer event has come and gone with yet another disappointing move in the stock (downward of course)...more anlayst downgrades...more board rantings and ravings because of the analyst downgrades...more harboring of conspiracy theories and market manipulations; more promises of a partnership...fears of a secondary...supportive but not significant statistical results...endpoints and deadlines missed once again...old longs throwing in the towel and newbies talking of going from rags to riches...Same old story...Two years later.
So now it's unambiguously November...All eyes will be own the unvailing of the data that gave rise to the unambiguously summer data that was forthcoming from the umambiguously February data all from a trial DNDN said was basically "underpowered"..."too small" and essentially meaningless in the overall picture. But that was then and now is now.
A comment on the quality of your due diligence: Is the extent of your due diligence that you spoke a one physician? Is that physcian an oncologist or urologist? Did that physician look at the clinical trial data and ASCO presentations and publications examining that data? You did not specify that the dr was in fact a physician, although I assume that is what you meant. You, of course, do the level of due diligence that is appropriate for you. For me, if the conversation you described is the extent of your due diligence, that would be inadequate for me to follow any recommendations you make re this investment. The stock price, btw, bears very little correspondence to the clinical data in the short run. L
golongin2001: Well said! Your message is annoying for me as a long but you just about summed it up right and in a very entertaining and satirical way I might add. A couple of corrections if I may:
"So now it's unambiguously November...All eyes will be own the unvailing of the data"
That was not indicated by management. What was indicated is fourth quarter response from the FDA regarding the best way for filing a BLA. The full data may have to await Feb ASCO.
"a trial DNDN said was basically "underpowered"..."too small" and essentially meaningless in the overall picture."
underpowered and too small for stat sig yes but not at all meaningless as it is the confirmatory trial for 9901 and it was designed to be pooled with it. I might add that the pooled results are fully stat sig.