Actually doesnt make complete sense, if there are rail delays, how are there west coast draw downs ? Ie with rail delays how is stuff getting to mississippi river or the gulf?
So in that scenario you describe once the grain harvest is dealt with logistically, ethanol prices should creep back up as long as production stays at normal levels?
Ok educate me. It seems like there are 1 of 3 scenarios going on from my limited understanding:
1) as you say , they overproduced so that the ethanol would be ready ahead of time whenever the railcars happened to free up. But why would prices drop in that scenario?? because supply is matching up with demand in that scenario, its just that the timing of delivery is off. Again why would prices drop in scenario one?
2) the ethanol producers negotiated an export shipment to say brazil, canada, india or china at a lower price. Why the lower price? Because the ethanol producers would give up margin for the greater volume opportunity and opening up export markets. Win win for all involved. So all those gallons are sitting around as extra inventory because they are waiting to be shipped abroad. And why did the price drop? Because it was pre negotiated , not because supply did not meet up with demand.
3) supply simply outstripped demand. Ie the producers got greedy when margins were at multi year highs, they over produced hoping demand would be there but then it didnt materialize. Price drop!
Honestly scenarios 2 and 3 seem most likely to me. With 2 being bullish and 3 being bearish short term. Again , explain to me in your scenario 1 why prices would drop if supply was meeting up w demand and it was simply an issue of delivery timing?? My own opinion is we better see export shipments go up soon or this stock could be in for more trouble. The other thing that puzzles me is the drop in ethanol prices was supposedly initiated by reports of brazilian subsidies back a few weeks ago! Yet where are the brazilian imports? So if no imports why the commencement of the price drop? Some sort of price manipulation? Ie getting the price down to make more attractive to export markets like china? Puzzling stuff, would love an explanation
I never said insiders sold illegally, simply that they sold. Which is fact. Why ra sold is for everyone to figure out but bottom line they almost certainly have more knowledge on achn than you are i and they are selling not buying
Time will tell. I will say it was commonly known in the industry that the pharmaessett nuc was the real deal BEFORE the gilead 11 bill offer. ( I know for a fact that gilead had to offer 11 bill because other companies wanted pharmassett bad.)I am not hearing same thing about identix best nuc. Just remember if identix nuc winds up like inhibitex nuc (that bmy wasted 2.7 bill on) , then 3.7 bill willnot be seen as a low ball offer. It will seem like a crazy high offer. All these companies have to be actuaries and consider risk vs reward in making these spec bids. And all these companies are passing on achn
Toofunny, your fellow pumper vrebel doesnt agree w you. Read his post below. You pumpers should educate yourselves and get on same wavelength lol
So let me get this straight, piper had an overweight on nvax, a deal comes out that could be construed as a positive to drive up nvax stock price and so piper spins it that way. What a shocker! Lol
Just look at bmy, they threw away 2.7 bill because they thought there was an outside chance inhibitex had a nuc. Of course the cmpd was toxic and they wound up w nothing. Imo merck will wind up completely wasting most of the 3.7 bill on identix, but they thought it was worth the huge price and the gamble because if it had paid off the upside would have been huge. Why isnt anyone gambling on achn?
So its a ten bill market and you low ball? No way! Jnj did not low ball, they did a risk reward profile of alios and made the appropriate offer. They did the same with achn and they passed. You dont low ball/ under bid in a ten bill (in a single yr) market. Just look at gilead, they bid 11 freakin billion on pharmassett and came out HUGE winners. You dont mess around w these bids. Can you imagine if gilead had stopped at 4 bill for pharmassett instead of 11 bill? How much they would be kicking themselves now? You are hilarious. Face the most likely scenario, ra and cramer have executed a pump and dump on you retailers.
And i like your use of the word "potential", sounds like you are being a little vague to me lol. Whats your prediction? Forget potential, will 3422 best solvaldi or not?? I predict not
And the reason im skeptical, if you could answer: if 3422 trial is going soo well according to your view compared to sovaldi, Why did insider ra dump over 100 mill in stock in last 3 months. Makes no sense whatsoever. Not to mention the ceo, ex ceo and others selling. Wheres the insider buying based on this view you have that 3422 is superior to megablockbuster sovaldi, again makes no sense. Somehow you deduced this superior nature of 3422 but the ceo failed to figure this out? Lol
Exactly! That is the question. Fhfa was enabled by congress' legislation. BUT was that legislation even legal to begin with? He did not address that and leaves it up for other courts to decide
"Unprecedented", "parted the legal seas" ........interesting.....
"“Here, the plaintiffs’ true gripe is with the language of a statute that enabled FHFA and, consequently, Treasury, to take unprecedented steps to salvage the largest players in the mortgage finance industry before their looming collapse triggered a systemic panic,” Lamberth wrote, referring to the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
“Indeed, the plaintiffs’ grievance is really with Congress itself,” the judge said. “It was Congress, after all, that parted the legal seas so that FHFA and Treasury could effectively do whatever they thought was needed to stabilize and, if necessary, liquidate,” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (FMCC)"
Seems to me he is vindicating fhfa but not congress......
Yes i got it now, just a coincidence that this prof epstein happened to publish a piece on sweeney case on the same exact day as lamberth ruling. Confused the heck out of me
Except why did he say in second to last paragraph, "which at no point was discussed in sweeney"? Is that a typo?