JN- Your analysis is correct. I can live with the options even though it is too rich because he is at least aligned with shareholders but the salary is a greedy money grubbing play.
Now I am going to guess and this is pure speculation. Because of the multiple confirmations required by the FDA I can see a scenario where the initial results are back subject to confirmation by independent labs. It would provide the company with the data while leaving them in a position of being able to slow play the release until after providing to the FDA. They would be in the enviable position of knowing the results and controlling the timing of the retest for which they should have a high degree of confidence. The company can continue to state that the results are not in during the interim.
The FDA usually does not approve drugs based on a 10 patient trial with mined data. That is why the 4th biopsy is so critical. A positive result tips the scales. Absent solid dystrophin I am very concerned that the company is going to have to come back with its phase 3 data and play catch up. Also without solid dystrophin I would be very concerned about the phase 3 data when it is ultimately released. Dris has plenty of data to play with and strong charity support. BMRN is a proven winner and SRPT has been a cartoon character and I think that has a lot to do with the valuations. The bet is that BMRN will get this across the line while SRPT will find a way to screw things up. So the downside is still single digits here-don't get too caught up in the cheering, but the upside is triple figures. Still want to see how Wall St reads the debt deal - if the smart money believes that the move was a tell on the 4th biopsy results being strong we will see a steady rise from here. Just one man's opinion.
If he really "knows" that then that is very material non public information. If that information had leaked then the stock would be much much higher. That so called knowledge simply is not credible and is at best a guess or a wish. When someone overstates something there is no need for a long argument. You just make a mental note and take everything they say with a huge grain of salt.
They may exist at this point but agree with you that this is an enormous issue to overcome the small n concerns and separate from all competition.
There should be some fear- there certainly is no shortage of greed. The results are not known- hence a binary event. I am hoping for great results but hoping is far different than a sure thing. Its all about perspective and balance.
It seems reasonable to believe the reread was positive but all of these pumpers celebrating about 4th biopsy results they do not know is beyond foolish. There is a lot of reason to be optimistic, but we have absolutely no assurance that the 4th biopsy results will be stellar or even know what stellar means. Absent great biopsy results the company rides on BMRN's coattails and prays. Strong results are a game changer because it creates separation on the most critical of biomarkers. Even charities with financial stakes in other brands will need to take notice.
You may be a little premature here. Wait until you see SRPT's biopsy results and then it might be appropriate to repost. Although I am hopeful for good results no one can say how those will look and even if positive whether they are positive to a sufficient degree.
That is the point. I really don't know what the results will be - nor does anyone else. A healthy discussion could be around what will need to be shown to come across as a positive. We know that 10% is a target but there are so many other factors variability, number, quality etc. That is why I agree with you that the UCLA letter is a big deal because that approach would take quite a bit of pressure off these results. But if it is not adopted then what is the test for success?
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Don't like it. Get good results , do a secondary and be done with it. ATM's create a long term overhang. Also last time they did not even sell into spikes.
I may have picked the wrong post to reply to because your enthusiasm is not unbridled and I agree that the investment is somewhat derisked. My concern is with those who believe it is entirely derisked- which it is not.
So what precisely will it show? Same as earlier, more dystrphin, better fiber count, more than 10%? Please elaborate the details in English.
Don't get me wrong. I am very bullish here given the new developments and I do hope this will be a long term success for the kids, their families and investors alike. That said, don't risk money you can't afford to lose. This stock has destroyed some folks who got ultra bullish, got on margin and got slammed. While I don't dispute your reasoning, it is not me that will be making the final decision and thus far the FDA has shown itself to throw a pretty good curve ball. The best argument or the best team doesn't always win so all I am saying is that this is not a slam dunk. Now when we actually see the 4th biopsy results that may be another story. As for IP the issue goes to valuation of exon 51 and I have given up trying to guess what courts will do. As to your last question take a look at the dialogue on IV - some investors do believe Drisa is more effective and suggest Etep is "sugar water" (I disagree)- no one disputes Etep is better on safety, but safety without efficacy will not win the day. I still believe the UCLA letter shows the way and that confirmation of dystrophin production in the 4th biopsy will be sufficient to garner approval.
Sentiment: Strong Buy