Recent

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

OCATA THERAPEUTICS, INC. Message Board

betasplen1 237 posts  |  Last Activity: 2 hours 37 minutes ago Member since: Mar 2, 2004
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • betasplen1 by betasplen1 2 hours 37 minutes ago Flag

    2 more patents issued for this sorry-excuse-of-a-drug. OMG Teva, what are you going to do now? Hurry up and make that low ball offer that you were planning to anyway when you filed the ANDA. It will get summarily rejected but at least you will get the dialogue going before Actavis gets into the act...

  • betasplen1 betasplen1 3 hours ago Flag

    Sorry Rup. I simply meant it as an innocuous (though truthful) observation. But I think everyone has sympathized with your honest, yet fateful confession and are simply helping you to remember it, lest you forget after a 100 posts. If this were Facebook, that post would have gotten a 1000 likes by now and tagged for everyone to see. Nothing to show for it on this woeful message board than some lowly taunts. Cut it out guys. Rup is only human....uhm..wait, scatch that....

  • betasplen1 by betasplen1 Apr 20, 2015 4:37 PM Flag

    Sorry to interrupt your volleys with the other longs here. I understand your loath for a company that tinkered with 2 long used drugs to come up with a formula that is giving your big money invention (and I use the word "your" loosely) a run for it's money with a minute sales force, no partner to market it (and drain the profits), and a soporific, part-time CEO. To add insult to injury, the Generic giants want to market the exact formula of that sorry-excuse-of-a-drug, to take over the obesity market. They don't want to try a different mixture, although you make it sound like it's as easy as grinding various animal body parts into a new sausage. Why? Because they have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and several years to see if a different formula will be as effective and to pass FDA clearance. The FDA is also looking at it like a new drug since they demanded an extensive CVOT trial (which may be a moot point soon). Truth is that VVUS has 20 year patents and the bigs need to buy out the mixture (or company) to bank on the improving climate for the obesity sector. And I believe that is what they are posturing to do with these otherwise, meaningless ANDAs. Sorry that you love capitalism but at the same time hate competition from those who perfect others' inventions. You must also hate Toyota and Honda for doing the same thing to Ford and GM for so long.

    I admit that VVUS longs are in no position to gloat on their company's achievements since the stock is in no way reflecting what the company is able to do... for now. But I once heard a wise man say "Fundamentals and price will always intersect one day on Wall Street." This dog will have it's day. I can wait. Till next time, continue to poke your nose in a stock message board with zero shares short or long...

  • betasplen1 betasplen1 Apr 20, 2015 3:18 PM Flag

    Yes! I found my first true short on this board. Oh wait... Never mind, it is just buttocks boy shooting off from his other end...

  • betasplen1 betasplen1 Apr 20, 2015 9:49 AM Flag

    That is the general assumption - that Teva is doing this so that VVUS will come to the bargaining table in the near future. They know they don't stand a chance to take this to the FDA for another 2.5 years (after Actavis action last year) - so why even bother? Actavis might be preparing a bid for Q (or VVUS) as well since they know Teva's intentions. If the morons in the head office don't start a buyback, our only hope for a nice rise is a bidding war between Actavis and Teva. Which reminds me, need to send the 4th email to VVUS regarding the buyback...

  • I was hoping Seth was shown the door (stock would have opened above $3 tomorrow) but nah....

  • Reply to

    Bantering with trolls

    by betasplen1 Apr 17, 2015 12:14 PM
    betasplen1 betasplen1 Apr 17, 2015 3:59 PM Flag

    Before the other longs ask if you are on meds to borrow more to buyback shares and that it should be reserved for companies swimming in cash, profits and sky high valuations, let me say that it all depends on whether management is confident that Q and S will continue growing revenues and if they will break even later this year, at least on a FCF basis. If they are confident and want to show it to the street (shareholders and shorts), then borrowing at 4 or 5% to get a 200-300% return in a year is uhm... prudent. But if they think the shorts would continue to own them no matter what they do and have no faith in their plans, then they should keep trying less riskier moves that may or may not work in appreciating the stock price. My premise is simple - If we wait to turn a profit before buying back shares, we could be starting the reversal from the $1s instead of from here The shorts have such a grip here that fundamentals have not mattered for the past 12 months and may not matter for the near future either...

  • betasplen1 by betasplen1 Apr 17, 2015 3:13 PM Flag

    From the board discussion over the past week, this is what I could gather about what will be reported for 1Q15:

    Avanafil product revenue: $12MM
    Milestone payment for 15-min onset in EU from Menarini: $11.5MM
    Royalties: $2MM (??)
    Qsymia (assuming flat again): $13M
    Total: $38.5MM

    And there was talk about a $15M milestone payment in the RBC conference in Feb 2015. Is that a combination of some of the above or separate? If separate, we are talking about $53.5MM revenue?? Either way, it is a considerable beat of the analyst consensus of $21.8MM. Are the analyst models so messed up? They have just $87.6MM for the whole year ($141.3MM in 2016) and we are talking about half of it in the first quarter alone!!

  • betasplen1 by betasplen1 Apr 17, 2015 12:14 PM Flag

    will be coming to an end from my side. I know it will be tough with ruprechtroll since he is such a card. Time to start catching up the real and extensive DD put out by mike, mooky, vinny, chris, rpt1 and the other long timers. The short theory is simple - it will keep dropping since it has been dropping for the past 2 years. Too shallow to analyze after a while. The long theory that it will finally reverse goes much deeper - they are facts-based regarding:
    1)Their product efficacy
    2)Their ongoing trial results that may avert the need for/reduce requirement for CVOT
    3) The continuing sales growth
    4) The company fundamentals
    5) The relative valuation w.r.t peers
    6) The continuing institutional support
    7) The indirect respect from big pharma by wanting to copy one of their products lately
    8) The ongoing expense reductions
    9) The buyout possibilities
    10) The tantalizing prospect of a short squeeze on a positive catalyst
    11) The future share buyback possibility

    Gives me a lot of gray matter material to chew on. BTW, I need to send a 3rd email today to management. Other longs who share the same views as me on the need for a share buyback, please bombard management till they respond one way or another. Later....

  • I probably won't wait for $30.

  • Reply to

    The usual suspects are not shorts

    by betasplen1 Apr 15, 2015 5:00 PM
    betasplen1 betasplen1 Apr 16, 2015 5:55 PM Flag

    Thanks for that insight Mooky. I like the "competitor hatred" theory more than the "paid basher" theory. But I would think they got what they wanted by now with VVUS decimated to 25% of ARNA's market cap, even with higher revenues than ARNA. Why still spew venom with "forked tongues" upon a seemingly dead horse? But the more I understand the bashers here, the calmer I am getting. I will probably stop engaging with them as time goes since I have more important things to do over here. My numero uno priority right now is to get Seth to agree on the share buyback initiative. That is the ONLY way to exterminate the vermins (other than a bidding war between Teva and Actavis)...

  • Reply to

    The usual suspects are not shorts

    by betasplen1 Apr 15, 2015 5:00 PM
    betasplen1 betasplen1 Apr 16, 2015 4:17 PM Flag

    To be truly joyful, you should learn to stop hating. They are mutually exclusive. May I know your purport of consternation?

  • betasplen1 by betasplen1 Apr 16, 2015 3:56 PM Flag

    Hi my feathered friend, how could I forget you? Sorry to belabor this point but I am on a mission to find a few good shorts here. Are you a short or a troll? I know emus are not short though they could look like a troll when compared to a peacock. I hope it is a simple question and I get a simple answer. So far, I have looked and found none. If you are short, please state your position as well. Nothing to be bashful about with the stock where it is... Thanks for your co-operation.

  • betasplen1 betasplen1 Apr 16, 2015 2:52 PM Flag

    Definitely not unknown because I own a bunch of it. But the jury is still out on the "gem" part. But thanks for the free advertisement anyway..

  • Reply to

    Interesting read

    by betasplen1 Apr 16, 2015 2:10 PM
    betasplen1 betasplen1 Apr 16, 2015 2:36 PM Flag

    2 words. Bidding war! The original pmt has got to hear this.He might cut short his expedition in the South Pole. After all, he was the grandfather of the "VVUS will be bought out" theory.

  • betasplen1 by betasplen1 Apr 16, 2015 2:10 PM Flag

    Google the following: "Vivus: Teva Wants To Make Generic Qsymia - Can This Be Good?"
    SA Article was written on Mar 11, 2015. See the point where neither wanted to partner but now want to make generics of Q? I need to share my genius title with this author :(...

    Here's an excerpt:
    --------------------------------------------
    So where are we now? We have two companies competing to have the right to make generic Qsymia. Vivus received a 30-month stay when it sued Actavis, and will get a similar stay when it files a suit against Teva. That being said, how expensive is it to fight on two fronts? Perhaps an opportunity has now presented itself where Vivus could turn one of these players into a suitor. In fact, it may be that Actavis and Teva went after generic Qsymia simply to get Vivus to the table. These companies could be interested in Qsymia at a very high level, or perhaps the interest is in the erectile dysfunction drug. Either way, the silver lining is having more than one party interested in the drug. Why neither stepped up to the plate to simply partner the drug would make for interesting conversation.

    So what is the investment strategy here? That is an interesting discussion as well. Vivus has over $300 million in cash but carries a market cap of less than its cash. Essentially, Vivus is cheap right now. The main reason it is cheap is that sales of both of its drugs are not setting any records. If a big pharma player like Teva or Actavis were to step up to buy Vivus, investors would see some form of premium. Vivus may be worth a look for this reason alone......

  • Reply to

    The usual suspects are not shorts

    by betasplen1 Apr 15, 2015 5:00 PM
    betasplen1 betasplen1 Apr 16, 2015 11:06 AM Flag

    Chris, so you are saying that buttocks boy is lying? Can't be....

  • Reply to

    The usual suspects are not shorts

    by betasplen1 Apr 15, 2015 5:00 PM
    betasplen1 betasplen1 Apr 16, 2015 11:04 AM Flag

    And "they" are making money hand over fist for the past 2 years but that's not the point Rup. From your logic, the institutions holding 70+MM shares of VVUS rarely make money. I don't have to tell you all the big names holding long - it is plain for everyone to see. Not so for the short side - they are shrouded in mystery. I conclude from this exercise that there are no shorts on this message board. Just trolls. Doesn't affect me but the passionate longs like Bubble and Miami may be interested in this revelation. BTW Rup, you are a classic, grotesque troll. Sorry, calling a spade a spade... See Wiki definition below:
    ---------------------------
    In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

  • Reply to

    The usual suspects are not shorts

    by betasplen1 Apr 15, 2015 5:00 PM
    betasplen1 betasplen1 Apr 16, 2015 9:32 AM Flag

    Seriously, who are the shorts on this message board (who have an active short position) that are part of the 35MM share army? Please reveal yourself. Also, what is your cost basis? I am long at $3.25. Thanks for your co-operation...

  • betasplen1 betasplen1 Apr 15, 2015 8:01 PM Flag

    Obviously the patents are valid and have not expired. So, TEVA has 2 choices. Make a bid for Qsymia (or VVUS) or wait another 2.5 years. I see them offering up to $300MM for Q (TEVA has over $2B in cash) and VVUS accepting the offer, paying off its debt, immediately going FCF positive with Stendra and announcing a huge share buyback and the stock shoots up to $15 on a monster short squeeze. And then I wake up from my wet dream...

ACTC
6.97+0.17(+2.50%)Nov 13 3:59 PMEST