Well,the way you've been calling this one, I'd surmise that the tax rate when you make your IRA withdrawals will be relatively low.
PS Calling the stock a "flying pig" seems to belie the apparent graciousness of "GLTA". As "halazia" has demonstrated from your posting history, you have missed a great opportunity here. Continued BLTU.
Well, those of us who prefer a long term capital gain taxed at a maximum federal rate of about 24% to a short term gain taxed at a maximum rate of around 43% see little point in ducking out of a great growth stock for a few points. Even if you knew when it was coming and could time it exactly. Which seems unlikely. I ducked out of this one in my IRA account, where it had no tax consequences, just ahead of the big pharma selloff in late February, then fished around for a reentry point and thought I did fairly well. To my surprise, when I ran the numbers, I found that I still could have made more money by just holding the initial position. Fortunately, I heavied up on what I felt sure would be a run back up to 85. Buying into any actual weakness is probably a safer tactic than selling into an imagined weakness.
When Adam F tweeted his 140 characters of wisdom, I posted that it seemed unlikely that the CEO would task his PR person with contacting Adam in order to arrange an "embargoed chat" to defuse a potentially damaging ADCO briefing document. Unlikely that the CEO would be stupid enough to do something so illegal. Unlikely that he thought Adam had enough clout to overrule whatever the common perception of the ADCOM briefing document might be. Unlikely that he'd go through a PR person, whose job, after all, is to blab. Unlikely that any one believed this would have any bearing on the ADCOM vote, which would be coming in two days anyway.
Likewise, it seems unlikely to me that investors, after weathering the peril of the Adcom vote, desperately toss 320,000 shares into the AH market, thus snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. While the shorts sit there smugly without covering. (This must have been the easiest short of all time. A "no" vote means you win. A "yes" vote means that you also win.) What seems more likely is that these were old trades, most of them made in the "dark pools", which were being reported after the fact. I don't own a lot of this, but I'm going to keep it. Two approved drugs is better than one.
Qsymia was marketed before Belviq ....and had already proven that the only way you could generate substantial numbers of new prescriptions for a weight loss drug was to give the drug away. I believe that the drug, after the free coupons were used up, cost less than $200 a month. And the hopeful retail longs believed (and many still do, oddly enough) that Belviq was going to make their fortune. They were expecting millions of new prescriptions the first year. I used to waste a lot of time on the ARNA board trying to convince those people that it was a fool's game which only the options MM's won. On the other hand, REGN went up sharply after approval. I thought it went too high and made a few bucks shorting it. I would have done much better to buy it. None of these situations are exactly analogous. But NPSP is very unlike ARNA.
Yeah, that yutz sure made some big gains for his followers this week. I think approval is priced in at around 32. But obviously there is some upside as the rest of Adam's "followers" take the rest of their punishment.
Alright, Long-Term Capital Management, to be perfectly fair, was a bunch of bigtime bond traders who used Myron Scholes and Robert Merton, the Nobel Prize winners, as window dressing. And they did produce very fat returns for their investors for a few years ... before losing it all.
I flunked out of engineering school, but a Barron's article some time ago evaluating Cramer's recommendations and concluded that (1) Someone was frontrunning his recommendations, and that (2) The only way to make money on his recommendations was to trade against them (i.e. short his buys and buy his sells -- the latter on the likely expectation that the Cramerites would short his sells, or at least buy puts.) As for academic attainment as a qualification for trading, we might all recall that giant fund in Greenwich which had four or five Nobel Prize winning economists on board constructing trading models for bonds. It went bust.
Oh, nonsense. This is just the 105 calls washing out. Watch this bounce above that level at the close ...in any event, this will be back to 107.50 on Monday.
The stock is under accumulation.
Appreciate your frankness. PREVAIL, the recently completed trial on which the pre-chemo approval was based, was Xtandi vs placebo. You could extrapolate from this that Xtandi was superior to Zytiga, however the trials were not exctly comparable, I believe, since the Zytiga vs placebo trial was stopped before an overall survival benefit was defined. TERRAIN is a smaller scale European trial of Xtandi vs Zytiga in metastatic pre-chemo patients. It parallels the STRIVE trial, which is being conducted in the US and has enrolled both metastatic and non-metastatic pre-chemo patients and also compare Xtandi vs Zytiga. Neither of these is as significant, in my opinion, as the much larger scale PROSPER trial, which compares Xtandi vs placebo in non-metastatic patients who are progessing (i.e. PSA rising) despite androgen deprivation thereapy.
You obviously recognize the well-known axiom that you make money by trading AGAINST Cramer's recommendations. His statement that GILD ismore risky than ACAD or ISIS is absurd on the face of it. I don't know what kind of speed he's on, but I'd say he's overdue for a long vacation.
Interesting question. I'll bet a lot more people are using GTC lowball buy orders.
Well, I think that they'll paint the tape with some minus trades in the morning and try to convince you otherwise. They seemed very determined to keep it from going green today. However, this is certainly headed above 100 pretty soon.
Johny, I'd just point out that the folks who are short those 41,000 shares of DNDN, even assuming that they have stop losses at a distant 1.50, have about $4,000 at risk.