@a_buzzerio: PWSAUSA's FB page, right? Can you tell me under which post (date/title?) that message is under? I would like to see for myself, but I can't find it.
Well if you're going to buy calls or puts you should be buying out of the money otherwise it is a bit of a waste imo.
You can just hold and if it will be up by next year (which I strongly believe it will) you will be fine.
Or, the best way to buy some insurance that it won't be up technically is to buy out of the money puts, hopefully on a large volume day to make sure the spread isn't awful.
If you buy calls you are betting that the stock will go up to a certain point at a certain time, so it is a gamble and the opposite of insurance...
"What will it take for you to finally admit that this drug is causing harm?"
How about causation?
I wonder if the safety study will have any new efficacy data. What do you think?
The other question is something a few shorts around here have been passing around: if the 12-month safety study will be released before March 31, why wait until Q3 to submit an NDA? (Does it really take 6 months to prepare an NDA?)
I am just speculating here, but I think it is because it was so thinly traded before it dropped that the mean (for the year) would be much smaller than 20. Looking at the volume chart (estimating), it seems that in one day (Sept. 24) the volume was more than the entire rest of the year. Then, (again speculating) maybe these algos that are shorting also believed that a 50% fall in a day would mean another slow 50% fall to get to a "true value" of $5... so yeah, algorithms. :P
I don't have any shares in the stock, nor am I short. I bought and sold it back in October/November and made a 45% profit, if you must know. I made the claim that the efficacy was there based on numerous evidence, and it was.
You can't conclude that the drug causes thrombosis from these two events. It may be that just weight loss in and of itself is causing this. It's also quite possible that random chance is involved, because even though the thrombosis death percent out of all deaths was 6% in the Loker study, there was a very large number of unknown deaths, which I strongly believe are actually thrombosis deaths.
They need to address the thrombosis issue or it will be limited to PWS. I don't see a buyout with such a limited market. There aren't any synergies from a buyout if it is just a PWS market (Zafgen does not need to market it much to PWS patients when PWS patients already pretty much know about it).