Shorts are getting hammered this week. Looks like the price is now settling - no big spikes.
Going back to $45 next week.
MM manipulate the prices and that makes it harder to individual investors/traders.
TIF should have been down 10% after the dissappointing earnings but it closed flat. Go figure!!
The article is a bunch of bull - it is just an opinion.
All the weird things that happened under Pearson and now thing of the past. VLO is making money and had a big portfolio of drugs along with a good pipeline. Agree they have a lot of debt but as long as they are making enough to service the debt, it's not an issue - all growth companies have debt.
it would have been useful if this author had some real analysis to back his opinion.
The fundamental look really good.
An independent petroleum refining and marketing company in the U.S., Canada, the Caribbean, the U.K. and Ireland.
Enterprise Value: $35.0 Billion
EBIT (TTM): $ 6.4 Billion
Enterprise Multiple: 5.50
Given the strong negative recommendation by ADCOM last week, there is 90% chance that DMD drug from SRPT 's eteplirsen will not get FDA approval. It is quite obvious that there is a lot of public support behind this drug - even bureaucrats are pretending the support the approval. At the end of the day, the assessment done by the team of experts matter. It that is not honored, then whole drug approal process created by FDA is flawed. Mrs Woodcock can not make this decision in isolation but instead she should/must trust the team of experts and believe in their recommendation.
The bottomline is that study done by Sarepta does not meet the standard. Why would Serapta do that? If they feel their drug is effective, they should have done a complete study.
See comments from the ADCOM blog:
"Would it have been possible for the applicant to do an adequate and well-controlled study? The answer clear is yes." FDA's Bastings
It was also clear fromt the ADCOM review that Clinical data do not match the patient testimony
AF was quite negative on at the end of ADCOM review. The review was quite negative. 3-7 in favor. I would not be fair for FDA to approve such drug without adequate data to support it's efficacy. Besides, the data was only from a sample size of 12 and it was inconclusive.