Gold markets went back and forth on Thursday, essentially settling nothing. It appears that the $1200 level is going to be like a magnet for price, so therefore we don’t really have much in the way of a trade at this moment. We believe that the market will continue to grind away and therefore it’s going to be very difficult to put any money into this marketplace anytime soon. We recognize that there is a larger consolidation area between $1220, and $1180. Until we get out of that area, gold for the most part is going to be a dead market
Greece exit from Euro on April 20...all set
"We see the Dollar as merely resting before it moves higher again," says G10 strategist Steven Barrow at Standard Bank, now branded as ICBC Standard Bank, after China's largest bank acquired 60% of the former South African bank's London unit in February.
"It's only once the Fed has got the first rate hike out of the way that we might see a more durable 'sell the fact' reaction in the greenback."
Gold Price 'Favors Break to $1300' as Shanghai's Offshore Yuan Trading Leaps Again, Widens Discount to London Price
Published : Friday, April 17, 2015. Related articles and keywords : Barrick Gold - Gold -. To go to the original ...
Same as ............BCRX committed clinical trial fraud. I'd heard that they submitted false data to the FDA (it's in their SEC filings) but didn't know the details. ...
BioCryst's stock soared, going from $6 a share to almost $13 within a few months, and they became the darlings of Wall Street.
The drug company's house of cards tumbled when a company researcher not privy to the plot recalculated the results of the drug trial six months after it ended. He found that only 30% of drug-treated lesions improved.
I see similarity between these 2 companies.....in BCRX NOV 2005 scandal people lost AROUND $--Millions where as DYAX it will be $Billions..........
Revenues declined 49.1 percent from $10.6 million yoy to $5.4 million. Analysts expected revenues of $3.7 million. The stock is now up 1.68% to $10.30 on nearly 51K shares.
For the year, the drugmaker reported that its loss widened to $45.2 million, or $0.68 per share, compared to a net loss of $30.1 million, or $0.55 per share for 2013. Revenue was reported as $13.6 million.
Note all in Brackets ....( ....) meaning all negatives operating margin of (207.95%) and (170.59%), respectively.
A former oncologist and his wife, a nurse, almost got away with a fraud that would have made them and an early-stage drug company millions of dollars by placing a largely ineffective topical treatment on the market. But a mistake committed by the oncologist, Harry Snyder, sealed their fate.
In the early 1990s, Snyder was vice president of clinical development at BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, a company based in Alabama; Renee Peugeot, his wife, was a registered nurse at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). In 1994, BioCryst's only drug, BCX-34, was in early FDA clinical trials for the treatment of psoriasis and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare form of skin cancer. BCX-34 is a phosphorylase inhibitor that researchers hoped would inhibit T cells, which play a role in both psoriasis and T-cell lymphoma.
At the urging of BioCryst executives, Peugeot was hired to work on the BCX-34 cancer trial at UAB, and she eventually oversaw much of the research involving the drug.
Though the trial was designed to be double-blind, court documents show that Snyder, previously a viral oncologist at Cornell University and author of dozens of scientific papers from the 1970s through the 1990s, started alerting colleagues that BCX-34 was looking like a successful cancer treatment a full month before the studies were completed. He and Peugeot also bought additional shares in BioCryst before the trial ended. Eventually the couple owned company stock and options worth $600,000.
At the end of the trial, data suggested that BCX-34 was an effective treatment in the study's 22 T-cell lymphoma patients at UAB (there were some patients being treated at Washington University in St. Louis). In February 1995, BioCryst issued a press release trumpeting the effectiveness of the drug against both psoriasis and the deadly skin cancer, and informed the FDA that 59 percent of the trial participants either saw their cancer disappear or improve markedly.
BioCryst stock shot through the roof. One share in the company was worth $6 at the end of the trial, and almost $13 only months later. Investors sank millions of dollars into BioCryst and its new cancer blockbuster.
Then BioCryst's medical director and Snyder's superior, William Cook, started writing up the psoriasis arm of the trial for publication, and noticed some irregularities. He found that Snyder had altered the randomization schedule for both trials; reanalyzing the data using the original randomization schedule from the study coordinator, Cook found that only 30 percent of the trial patients who received BCX-34 experienced a benefit from the drug.
In June, BioCryst held an executive meeting and announced what Cook had uncovered. Snyder attempted to justify the discrepancy, to no avail. The company alerted the FDA and issued a press release saying that BCX-34 was not a miracle cure for cancer. The bottom fell out of BioCryst stocks. Investors ended up losing about $34 million.
At trial, prosecutors revealed that Peugeot had participated in the scheme by fudging clinical data in her direct interactions with patients, while Snyder forged a randomization schedule to make it appear that the people who showed improvements in their disorders were also the ones treated with BCX-34. "What made it work so perfectly was that they were on both sides of the double-blind study," says Adolph Dean, a former Assistant US Attorney and one of the prosecutors in Snyder and Peugeot's case. "She was a subinvestigator for the principal investigator and he was working at the company that was conducting the study. They were playing Russian roulette with people's lives."
A break-out from the multi-month head & shoulders bottom pattern would target at least another 15% of upside (~$15.50).
By 2029 the reverse will happen ....Mkt cap from $4Billion to $40Mil ...as HAE drugs will be replaced with Vaccine like Polio Vaccine.....Outof .$3,960 Million few Million would be used for paying of many Analyst who boasted the stocks for that long.
Earnings growth (last year) -23.64%
Earnings growth (this year) -52.94%
Earnings growth (next 5 years) -14.84%
Revenue growth (last year) -21.48%
BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS INC has experienced a steep decline in earnings per share in the most recent quarter in comparison to its performance from the same quarter a year ago. Earnings per share have declined over the last year. We anticipate that this should continue in the coming year. During the past fiscal year, BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS INC reported poor results of -$0.68 versus -$0.55 in the prior year. For the next year, the market is expecting a contraction of 58.1% in earnings (-$1.08 versus -$0.68).
The company, on the basis of change in net income from the same quarter one year ago, has significantly underperformed when compared to that of the S&P 500 and the Biotechnology industry. The net income has significantly decreased by 115.0% when compared to the same quarter one year ago, falling from #$%$43 million to -$11.67 million.
Net operating cash flow has significantly decreased to -$13.89 million or 207.64% when compared to the same quarter last year. In addition, when comparing to the industry average, the firm's growth rate is much lower.
The share price of BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS INC has not done very well: it is down 20.10% and has underperformed the S&P 500, in part reflecting the company's sharply declining earnings per share when compared to the year-earlier quarter. The fact that the stock is now selling for less than others in its industry in relation to its current earnings is not reason enough to justify a buy rating at this time.
The revenue fell significantly faster than the industry average of 36.0%. Since the same quarter one year prior, revenues fell by 48.5%. The declining revenue appears to have seeped down to the company's bottom line, decreasing earnings per share.