Recent

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

Olin Corp. Message Board

g_noh 54 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 8, 2016 2:31 PM Member since: Dec 21, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • g_noh g_noh Jul 8, 2016 2:31 PM Flag

    I fully agree with your assessment of brett. he has a lot of followers but that is because he has written like a gazillion articles. averaging about an article a day and in every industry imaginable, how much could he know about any company. like the old saying goes, garbage in garbage out.

  • g_noh g_noh May 5, 2016 5:24 PM Flag

    More useless stuff. I said, you said, he said, they said, who cares? The heading to my thread may have been misleading, inaccurate, it doesn't matter, it triggered a useful discussion, in my opinion, about the utility of analysts' estimate. You obviously like to have the last word. I hate that. Makes it difficult for me to have the last word.

    In any case, I'm going to repost my last comment to you yesterday, which you never addressed, and I'll let that be my final word as far as rlyp is concerned, because i really don't care where it goes, contrary to what bigpapi below/above and others obviously think.

    glenntrader,

    all the gratuitous name calling and bs aside, let's look at the numbers objectively. i'll tell you what i see and you can correct me.

    we can argue endlessly about whether the analysts' rev numbers included the licensing fees or not, but that's a side show. the licensing fees are backward looking and have no relevance to how the company and its drug performed in the first quarter. those same licensing fees also reduced the q1 loss, on an accounting basis, but that's misleading as far as the real bottom-line performance is concerned.

    the reality as far the first quarter goes is that Relypsa generated less than $0.6 million in revenues and lost $1.53 a share. whether these figures are better or worse than expected can be debated but the actual numbers are the actual numbers and if i were long the stock, i wouldn't be particularly happy.

    i don't have a position in the stock. i would never short a crazy stock like this, manipulated as it is. the premiums on the options are also way to steep, foreclosing my taking a position. I would never buy this crazy stock either. manipulated stocks make me very nervous, in both directions

  • g_noh g_noh May 5, 2016 3:30 PM Flag

    Thanks for not explaining GAAP to me, you're always so very kind. As you noted, the rules governing when and how licensing fees are recognized are probably beyond the expertise of most CFOs. And beyond the fact that it's all but impossible to know ahead of time when those fees will hit the P&L, most analysts recognize that those fees are vitually irrelevant in assessing a company's performance. Consequently, some analysts, the bad ones, will include an estimate of those fees in their top and bottom line estimates,, while some won't. So the consensus figures that folks get all excited about are derived from a mix of apples and oranges and are essentially useless.

    You can certainly harp on my supposedly "incorrect assertions" and I can point to your inaccurate suggestions that analysts are required to include the fees, but it all sums up to a complete waste of time. In any case, I wonder if you noticed that my thread immediately followed one touting the nonsense that results were much better than expected. I wonder if you added some much-needed perspective to that analysis.

  • g_noh g_noh May 5, 2016 2:41 PM Flag

    hey glenn, who really cares whether total sales were above, at, or below expectations??? if you want to insist the $6.9 million estimate included licensing fees and this was per management guidance, you have to question management's abilities when they were off by a factor of two. You also have to keep in mind that the fee was nothing more than a book keeping entry, adding no new cash and doing nothing to reducing first-quarter losses. The fees make the reported numbers look better better and if you're into appearances, i'm happy for you. Otherwise, it's hard to be happy with product sales of $0.6 million, especially when it's a product that we've been waiting for 50 years.

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 8:14 PM Flag

    i'll go one further for you. anyone who invents such backgrounds aren't OFTEN fos, they are always fos. i have no idea what the rest of your comment means, anyway, good luck to you.

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 8:12 PM Flag

    is any of this relevant? less than or more than, who cares! it's still $595K. if you're happy with that, i'm happy for you. good luck.

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 8:01 PM Flag

    glenntrader,

    all the gratuitous name calling and bs aside, let's look at the numbers objectively. i'll tell you what i see and you can correct me.

    we can argue endlessly about whether the analysts' rev numbers included the licensing fees or not, but that's a side show. the licensing fees are backward looking and have no relevance to how the company and its drug performed in the first quarter. those same licensing fees also reduced the q1 loss, on an accounting basis, but that's misleading as far as the real bottom-line performance is concerned.

    the reality as far the first quarter goes is that Relypsa generated less than $0.6 million in revenues and lost $1.53 a share. whether these figures are better or worse than expected can be debated but the actual numbers are the actual numbers and if i were long the stock, i wouldn't be particularly happy.

    i don't have a position in the stock. i would never short a crazy stock like this, manipulated as it is. the premiums on the options are also way to steep, foreclosing my taking a position. I would never buy this crazy stock either. manipulated stocks make me very nervous, in both directions.

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 7:38 PM Flag

    not that it really matters but i have a masters degree in international finance and have been an equity analyst for 30 years. i would also guess there are an estimated 100 analysts working in different brokerage houses and other financial institutions that i've trained over the past three decades. and just one other bit of information, you won't learn about one-time licensing fees and collaboration revenues being included (or excluded) in accounting 101 or any financial analysis courses. but you will learn about them from analysts who've followed drug and biotech companies for more years than i like to admit. so you can take all those facts and do with them as you please. And you can certainly include yourself among the posters you call clueless.

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 6:35 PM Flag

    whatever. if you think analysts include licensing numbers in their estimates, that's certainly your prerogative. good luck to you too.

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 6:15 PM Flag

    gotta stop being so numerate and work on your reading comprehension. i wasn't expecting anything, the $6.9 million was the consensus estimate, as has been repeated over and over on this thread. learn to read baby.

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 5:57 PM Flag

    being "numerate?" where did you go to school? under some mango tree? and just in case you got lost somewhere, this thread is about actual versus estimate. no one cares about what you calculated.

    I take that back, the folks on this board might actually care about your expectation. can't expect too much from a bunch of bananas who give thumbs down to facts.

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 5:42 PM Flag

    omg, you are a dolt. who gives a flying you know what what the mango was looking for? so you think calculating revs in the first few months post launch helps you value companies. you truly are a you know what.

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 5:26 PM Flag

    you guys are really tiring. one of you says the expectation was $0.6 million. another says it was $12 million. look at the official consensus estimate and it was $6.9 million.

    whatever the estimate was, the $0.6 million product sales figure is abysmal. keep in mind also that one of the big selling points, mentioned by every analyst touting this stock, was that veltassa was the first drug approved in 50 years for hyperkalemia. if it were such a huge deal, wouldn't you expect some pent up demand, enough to drive sales of at least more than $600,000?

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 5:10 PM Flag

    in that case, you should notify all the analysts on wall street because the consensus number was $6.9. their number not mine.

    and if .6 million is what you were looking for, isn't that pretty scary??? why would you buy stock in a company whose q1 revs annualize to $2.4 million?

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 4:59 PM Flag

    Wrong. Estimate for all of 2015 is $38.5 million.

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 4:51 PM Flag

    the street always reacts first and then takes the time to assess. am i wrong?

  • Reply to

    Results Far Worse than Expected

    by g_noh May 4, 2016 4:42 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 4:48 PM Flag

    thumbs down is fine but is the analysis incorrect?

  • Product revenues were only $592,000, versus estimate of $6.9 million.
    Earnings per share, excluding the collaboration & license rev, was a loss of $1.53 vs estimate of $1.46.

    NOT looking good. Product rev of $592,000 --- not good

  • Reply to

    Results slightly better than expected

    by rumrunner66 May 4, 2016 4:10 PM
    g_noh g_noh May 4, 2016 4:37 PM Flag

    total revenues not important. the important measure is product revenues, and it was only $592,000. the loss is far worse if you exclude collaboration and license revenue, which you should since it's nonrecurring and wasn't included in analysts' estimates.

    stock gets hit again once after all this is figured out.

  • I'm not sure why they call retail investors investors. They should be called clueless gamblers or pigeons. Have any of you been at a blackjack table with players who didn't have a clue on strategy, strategies that have been studied and developed based on statistics? Haven't you mumbled to yourself, "idiots?" I'm sorry to say this but I feel the same way when I read some of the stuff on this board, from gamblers and pigeons who don't have a clue. Quite frankly, even "gambler" may be too generous, since when you gamble, you at least have a chance.

    As i see it, you're not investing here, you're not even gambling. you're tossing your money away to the people who underwrite all those stories about takeovers and huge markets.

OLN
21.77+0.31(+1.44%)11:55 AMEDT