JT on record to say Q.4 $26M vs street estimate of $23.6 with a 10% beat on top-line. FY15 revs of $80.0 M vs $78.6M. Cash of roughly $107M. Probable Anchor on horizon and the stock price at $1.30 and a current ratio of 3.0.
So you're think they will dilute at maybe $1.25? Pretty interesting stuff ! ! !
What continues to be amazing is the amount of interest surrounding this stock despite all the bashing. Furthermore, there's also a lot of legal money being spent attempting to invalidate Vascepa patents and the circumvent the regulatory landscape (Teva/Watson). Teva is desperate to get their hands on EPA and has been employing several legal attempts in the process. AZN is awaiting RI to determine how to value AMRN. All statin players are anxiously awaiting the RI results. For those believing RI will be successful, these are now excellent buying levels. If RI is not stopped at 967 but still demonstrates robust efficacy - it will nor be game over for the company. There is a liklihood the statin players will nonetheless move in.
Many interesting posters recently alluding to a "secondary" forthcoming or "company needs financing to complete RI". I guess these are scare tactics again now being circulated to trigger additional shorting. First, this have been a tough market since the end of November. In fact, AMRN has been trading at the same support level as AAPL - based on percent change. Don't believe me than go check the three month on a comparision basis. Second, AMRN has continued to breakdown over the past week in spite of a recent rally. Based on recent posting activity and the light volume over the last week, the stock is obviously being manipulated. SFF, if you could post recent short activity, it would confirm whats been going on.
So what does our future PPS hold? That is a total unknown based on several catalysts. It remains clear this will continue to be a highly speculative play over the next 12 months that has a potentially high payoff. Management is aware of this and attempted to affirm a 2017 cash flow positive announcement earlier this month. SunTrust also made this claim in their pro forma assessment. There will be not no "secondary" offering forthcoming. These are simply absurd statements made by ignorant posters.
This is the tricky part for investors. Management expects "967" to occur in H1 2016. There is only one poster who claims to know the exact date but can't support his claim based on the science of EPA. The company expects to run the study to completion and remains cautiously optimistic about an early halt. Also, management continues to negotiate a 1A settlement and investors/traders remain antsy to the falling stock price. Shorts will continue to play here until this settlement results in the SPA reinstatement and Anchor approval. How will the FDA save face? They will announce there is recent supporting evidence (CHERRY and various others) now tends to support the position V likely reduces CV events. Settlement will not happen until we see 967.
I don't expect RAF to be a JL type poster (from IHUB) who understands the science better than anyone on either board. When a guy comes out and declares a date and efficacy rate, it suggests he has a comprehensive and through understand of the science. Others on this board have just called him stupid based on his grammar and logic he uses to base his decision. I simply "challenged" him for the benefit of doubt. I for one do not attempt to come across as a SME about Vascepa or the science behind and therefore don't attempt such outrageous predictions. I am long 55,000 shares and better hope to understand the science. I have discovered that RAF is incapable of formulating his own opinion despite spending a lot of time on YMB as well as IHUB.
As for the science, I understand 96 percent pure EPA mechanism of action reduces CV inflammation and lowers Lp-PLA2 as well as other inflammatory markers. This, in addition to other lipid biomarkers seems to suggest a successful RI outcome.
Did I miss something????? I haven't seen an explanation from the current thread based on scientific analysis you have performed. Could you please summarize your scientific position? Thx.
I am respectfully asking you to provide your insight that supports the science leading you to believe Feb 11, 2016 with a RRR of 38%. You can articulate your position by including discussing Apo A.B/C, remnant like particles, Lp-PLA2 (a biomarker detecting inflammation, or a factorial design assessment looking at both the control group (statin only) vs the experimental group (EPA plus statin). If you are willing to share a very specific date - Feb. 11 - then you must have specific knowledge regarding the science supporting your hypothesis.
I think you misunderstood my question. I'm not asking you about the timing of 967 based on HD Gabor's RRR table or the calculated date based historical studies. I'm attempting to understand your rationale behind the science that leads you to believe 967 will occur on Feb. 11th.
Your point is well taken. The key takeaway is this: The leadership team is being extremely cautious on this topic due to Safe Harbor. They can't portray an extremely bullish or optimistic perspective and then be set up for potential lawsuits by investors if RI isn't stopped at interim. Again, investors and traders have to look for some of signals from management as I mentioned earlier.
Raf - I would like to clearly understand your position. You have stated both here and I-HUB that RI will be stopped at interim. Please provide your rationale - not by simply stating your predicted event rate but rather how you have arrived at this based on the science of your decision. This is your opportunity to share a perspective that alludes most of us on both boards.
I think this board would probably be better served by focusing on results rather than insults. With that said it's interesting to see what leadership is planning as we approach 967. An comparison would be the laying of new railroad tracks prior to Burlington Northern paving a new route or trail.
First, and most important, AMRN leadership has announced the company will be cash flow positive this year 2016. This won't occur by the modest script growth we've witnessed over the past year. Jon Boris from Sun Trust has stated sales will be $177 M with EAT of $2.9 M. YOY sales will go from $75M in 2015 to $175M in 2016 - this is 133% increase. On this basis alone AMRN PPS should be roughly $3 by years' end.
Second, the appoint of Craig Granowitz suggests AMRN is looking for an experienced medical officer that has dealt with the FDA in the past (IMPROVE IT). This tends to support the company belief the trial will proceed through 2018. We also know what has transpired with MRK in the past. The company announced in 2014 it no longer planned to file for U.S. regulatory approval of MK-0524B and the IMPROVE IT trial was not successful. MRK is seeking to extend the life cycle of Zocor.
Can anyone feel the shorts movin' in? For some reason, they feel insulting other posters will lead to a decline in share price. Most posters with knowledge or respected insight are long gone. YMB consists of nothing more than a group of low functioning individuals.
I'm not sure why you're posting this on YMB. The both of you have agitated each other for a very long time. Please take the high road as ALL of us really don't care. If you feel harassed, collect your documentation and proceed to your local courthouse. This Rafun poster his zero creditabilty here and is recognized as a bafoon in I-HUB. Good luck and simply post your ideas about AMRN. There will be a lot happening in 2016 with a possible JV/buyout, interim results, NCE and so on. Good luck with litigation!
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've never heard hypothesis testing conducted under the initial assumption that there is no statistical difference between groups - pairwise comparison. All parametric tests of hypothesis assume the Ho (null) and H1 (alternate). As a researcher, you then select a confidence interval. In the hard sciences it's usually 99 percent, in business settings it is 95 percent and in a social science setting it's traditionally 90 percent. The goal is to prove H1 (alternate) not assume there is no difference. Why would you conduct the study? You're not going to have "less data" data if you run a trial for an additional two years. The data or sample size should (n) remain the the same. Some of your other statements don't make sense either. Could you please explain "not running full length leading to wider margin of error??? Could you please explain how you interpret "point estimate" and "confidence interval estimate"? Also what does early stoppage have to do with "limited sub group analysis"?
Vascepa's critical path was blocked in 2014 due to past failed trials - ACCORD Lipid, AIM-HIGH, HPS-2 THRIVE forcing FDA to re-think ANCHOR SPA. Internal thinking within FDA is now supporting conditional ANCHOR approval based on recent evidence supporting EPA as an add-on to statin therapy. AMRN is currently in discussions regarding conditional approval in light of 1-A victory and recent body of knowledge (remnant like particles, CHERRY etc.) -hence the delay. Look for settlement by mid-December. Merck acquisition to follow in Q.1 2016. All for now --------
Sentiment: Strong Buy