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

American Capital Agency Corp. Message Board

eightironfrom160 352 posts  |  Last Activity: Jan 2, 2016 2:11 PM Member since: Feb 11, 2000
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Looking at 2016

    by cash2go Dec 20, 2015 8:15 PM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Jan 2, 2016 2:11 PM Flag

    have you seen an actual 2016++ revenue forecast? Shifting thru the 10-Q, all I see is the Queen patents are 88% of royalties. I watched their investor presentations......they talk about the portfolio but never publish a revenue forecast (which will be royalties and interest income). If the above holds true (Queen is 88%), I have revenue POST Queen at just $87m ($29m interest, $58m royalties). After G&A and interest, net income is nearly zero. They will likely use their cash to buy down their debt so could improve. 8iron

  • Reply to


    by nrl_baseball Jan 17, 2014 9:42 AM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Jan 17, 2014 9:50 AM Flag

    how the #$%$ on Wall Street make money. Sell the call, buy the puts then downgrade. Instant $$.

  • eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Aug 7, 2013 9:39 PM Flag

    A random polls of unnamed professional experts (not even hc experts) vs the NAMED stats guy on SA who HAS enormous experience.....and all of VOs stats align with his scenario

    Ya give me the 12 unmaned wall st guys with liberal arts degrees.....LOL.....

  • eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Mar 28, 2013 12:49 PM Flag

    ok appreciate the info I'll give them a day seems odd etrade/scottrade did it but not tda

  • eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Mar 28, 2013 9:55 AM Flag

    weird SBY in my etrade acct NOT in tdameritrade...

  • Reply to

    simple question sure answer is complicated

    by eightironfrom160 Jan 28, 2013 2:25 PM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Jan 28, 2013 3:38 PM Flag given 10/30yr are on the rise and st are flat (or not rising correspondingly), should be a net positive for AGNC my assumption anyway

  • eightironfrom160 by eightironfrom160 Jan 28, 2013 2:25 PM Flag

    the 30 yr (and 10yr) bond have moved up significantly in the last 2 months...30 yr up 14% (2.75 to 3.15 today). Should I assume, if the 30 yr can hold above 3% or even go higher, this move will be very positive for AGNC? ie doesn't this impact their net interest spread positively?

    thx 8iron

  • Reply to

    Time to sell Some

    by walrathcrai Nov 7, 2011 3:48 PM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Nov 7, 2011 4:28 PM Flag

    hard to disagree...almost pulled the trigger but the big move up today right b4 earnings did not smell right...we've all been waiting on the Roche litigation. Maybe someone is purely rolling the dice.

  • Reply to

    Deep breath

    by stpaulmn Jul 13, 2011 12:34 PM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Jul 13, 2011 6:16 PM Flag

    I see this past year rise/fall but 2 yrs ago, CIM did not go to 4 in the winter as you state (peaked at 3.5). Perhaps on a % basis (summer low to winter high) is comparable.

    the question is what drove this to $4.25 and are the same factors in place? If so, then look for entry points. If not, either pray a lot or sell...

    IMO, the macro environment is safe. Helicopter Ben is preparing for Qe3.

  • Reply to

    Cheerleaders back under their rocks..

    by beefstu57 Jul 12, 2011 11:38 AM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Jul 12, 2011 12:08 PM Flag

    And you are the voice of reason??? LOL.

    Whether positive (aka the cheerleaders) or negative (aka anything BeefStu writes) I find it comical posters actually believe posting means ANYTHING. Funny how posters like you must find an outlet for their shortcomings and ego by hurling insults....

    This is why Yahoo created the IGNORE USER button.

    PDL is about the simplest stock one can own...the payout/IRR is on the Board. The wildcard is the Roche settlement. Round 1 to PDL.

    disclosure: LONG (until Roche is settled)

  • eightironfrom160 by eightironfrom160 Jun 8, 2011 4:50 PM Flag

    holy batman!

  • eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Apr 5, 2011 11:32 AM Flag

    Read Red's comments under the Stock Stabilized topic.
    Also, read PDL's 3Q 10 update.

    Roche did not think the letter violated the 2003 agreement bc they were challenging OUS patents. They also engage Novartis et al into the party.

    Since then, the euros have dismissed the patent challenge and PDL has settled with everyone outside Roche. That said, and is noted in other posts, it's PDL's biggest client.

    The damages can be up to $1b per agreement but writing it and GETTING that amount are 2 different things. I still predict something in the neighborhood of $150m. just MHO.

  • Reply to

    Stock Stablization Thanks to...............

    by davecharles2901 Mar 29, 2011 10:59 PM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Apr 4, 2011 8:51 PM Flag

    my bad. I have been trying to locate the agreement but I did find a good summary. I didn't realize the penalties to Roche could amount up to $1b.

    "The 2003 settlement agreement was entered into as part of a definitive agreement resolving intellectual property disputes between the two companies at that time. The agreement limits Genentech’s ability to challenge infringement of our patent rights and waives Genentech’s right to challenge the validity of our patent rights. Certain breaches of the 2003 settlement agreement as alleged by our complaint require Genentech to pay us liquidated and other damages of up to $1.0 billion. This amount includes a retroactive royalty rate of 3.75% on past U.S.-based Sales of the Genentech Products and interest, among other items. We may also be entitled to either terminate our license agreements with Genentech or be paid a flat royalty of 3.75% on future U.S.-based Sales of the Genentech Products. The outcome of this litigation is uncertain, and we may not be successful in our allegations."

  • Reply to

    Stock Stablization Thanks to...............

    by davecharles2901 Mar 29, 2011 10:59 PM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Apr 4, 2011 6:15 PM Flag

    Red...good points.

    Yes. They have more $$. Yes, they are client.

    But if Roche suddenly stopped paying $$ on very valid contracts, they will have to go in front of judge and argue "why"? The damages if Roche loses would have a B not an M. Roche has no grounds to stop current payments short of challenging the patent...which brings us to this mess. Plus, PDL has plenty of cash.

    Why does Roche have "better lawyers" when the Roche lawyers approved the letter to PDLI that put them in the "box"? Maybe more arrogant to believe they don't have to live by the agreement they signed but I don't think "better".

    The question is damages. PDL can easily show they $150m in mkt cap due to the letter, however, a large chunk of that has been recovered and given the other legal messes cleaned up, not hugely material. Other damages???

    My guess is they are haggling over some modest compensation...<$100m IMO. Those hoping for a $1b need to go by a lotto ticket...nothing to substantiate the amount other than stupidity by Roche.

  • Reply to

    This isn't dead

    by elstockjock Apr 1, 2011 2:43 AM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Apr 1, 2011 3:03 PM Flag

    I am only holding out for the Roche/Genetech settlement. Their agreement was very specific. After that, I'm out.

  • Reply to

    A.H. spike

    by kipnlnbest Mar 23, 2011 7:38 PM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Mar 23, 2011 11:00 PM Flag

    recommended by a widely followed newsletter

    given the low avg volume, expect a big spike tomorrow.

  • Reply to

    Revised ROI Guesstimate

    by seustis Mar 2, 2011 1:39 PM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Mar 2, 2011 11:39 PM Flag's legally a corporation but acts like a trust as the assets are diminishing.

    CF will likely NOT decrease in 2014. The royalties are paid on manufactured antibodies that go into product. These are made WELL ahead of product sales. Second, I believe I've read royalties received lag 1 quarter behind. So if the patents end at end of 2014 (think Dec?), then the combo of sales payment lag and manufacturing pipeline will ensure CF in 2015.

    I've seen some analysis that put $$ out into '16, albeit heavily discounted.


  • Reply to

    Revised ROI Guesstimate

    by seustis Mar 2, 2011 1:39 PM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Mar 2, 2011 3:37 PM Flag

    Brilliant. This is a royalty trust unless things change (new patents bought) and this EXACTLY the analysis needed.

    So the IRR is 14%. Fair enough. The question is how high will the market push the price based on the IRR? Second, they may have some royalty headwinds on Avastin and other drugs...but will this be offset by new drugs and growth rates exceeding forecasts. May see ST bumps, esp Avastin.

    The egghead analysts can do this same simple analysis...assuming they teach it at HBS anymore...

  • Reply to

    CC and Roche

    by dbulmer7 Feb 28, 2011 5:30 PM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Mar 2, 2011 11:16 AM Flag

    If you can read, I said I was NOT on the call.

    So, again, if PDL is "going on the offensive" and suing Gene/Roche, how can PDL PAYING Novartis be "offensive"?

    If Novartis was in the wrong, then they should pay PDL.

    In the end, they horse-traded Novartis dropping the EU patent complaint for a little $$. Works for me.

    Gene/Roche agreement is pretty solid. Certainly no downside, outside wasted legal fees (and this is NOT a big patent case so the fees should not be large, IMO). My guess is they are negotiating a settlement now....just comes down to $$ and terms.

  • Reply to

    CC and Roche

    by dbulmer7 Feb 28, 2011 5:30 PM
    eightironfrom160 eightironfrom160 Mar 2, 2011 10:18 AM Flag

    I was not on the call but the PR says PDL will PAY Novartis. Not Novartis will PAY PDLI. Looks like a small settlement but PDLI is not getting $$. Unless this is wrong below. That said, the Gene/Roche agreement is pretty tight. If they are paying, then they felt they could trade the patent challenge (defensive) for the Gene/Roche letter (offensive).

    "On February 25, 2011, PDL reached a settlement with Novartis. Under the settlement agreement, PDL agreed to dismiss its claims against Novartis in its action in Nevada state court which also includes Genentech, Inc. (Genentech) and F. Hoffman LaRoche Ltd (Roche). Novartis agreed to withdraw its opposition appeal in the EPO challenging the validity of the '216B Patent. The settlement does not affect PDL's claims against Genentech and Roche in the Nevada state court action. Under the settlement agreement with Novartis, PDL will pay Novartis an amount based on net sales of Lucentis during calendar year 2011 and beyond. The Company does not currently expect such amount to materially impact our total annual revenues.

17.53+0.29(+1.68%)Feb 12 4:00 PMEST