Tue, Sep 2, 2014, 4:24 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 5 hrs 6 mins


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

Seattle Genetics Inc. Message Board

fib1_1_2_3_5 15 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 28, 2014 9:12 AM Member since: Dec 8, 2000
  • Reply to


    by jtankandequipment Aug 27, 2014 3:23 PM
    fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Aug 28, 2014 9:12 AM Flag

    A disgruntled ex-TLON long I presume?

    If marquibo does well, you have a .50/s payment coming (I presume the full $1.00/s is not possible) , which is more than you would have seen if they did not sell. It is not a big drug, and never would have made TLON profitable.

    If marquibo flops, you would have had zilch, and this way have something.

    The rest of TLON is/was a joke.

  • Reply to

    Just crunched financials for this quarter

    by skittle12345 Aug 27, 2014 9:18 PM
    fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Aug 28, 2014 8:31 AM Flag

    CAPEX does not hit earnings.

  • Reply to

    The Eboli Virus - AIDS all over again ?

    by candideonboard Aug 17, 2014 1:41 AM
    fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Aug 27, 2014 10:38 AM Flag

    Because your post is junk science.

    Ebola is NOT very contagious. That is why despite numerous outbreaks over at least 3 decades (and presumably much longer) it has never spread much. The only reason it spreads to the few it does is because of dreadful conditions it that part of the world. In the US (or any other developed nation) it has no chance of spreading.

    You compare it to AIDS, and that is a good starting sport. They are about equally difficult to contract from another human. But the difference is AIDS has many years, even decades where it can be spread from somebody with no signs of sickness. Ebola has only a few days or weeks, and the infected person is obviously extremely sick.

    If by some 1 in a million chance somebody did catch it, that is a single other victim. For that person to spread it is another 1 in a million.

    Your post is simply based on ignorance and fear mongering of the media.

    And one last point. You are vastly more likely to die by being run over by an ambulance. So I assume you think it would be wrong to rush a lover one of yours to the hospital?

    Why 9 thumbs down? Because most people to not bother with such posts. But I will take the time to make it 10.

  • fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Aug 25, 2014 5:27 PM Flag

    Not that it matters much, but I would put the earliest date at "enrollment complete" + 84 + "slop", where "slop" is delay until treatment. I suspect your date comes from adding in the 20 day follow-up, which I believe is a mistake, as that is running from the last GCSF dosing (day 2 of cycle 4) for the remainder of that 21 day cycle. Thus, at day 84 from first dose it is truly over.

    And it certainly was not everybody that trips the timeline, only the last few enrolled would matter, others completed long ago.

    Anyway, I am certainly not the impatient type. As a kid I waited until 5AM to get up on Christmas morning :-)

  • Trial should be over by now. I would think the data set is reasonable simple (AEs and blood-work only).

    Another drug in the (hoped for) "marginally better" crowd that SPPI is addicted to, but good numbers here could be a mover.

  • Reply to

    Cliffs' FCF is still Good...

    by vipinkot47 Aug 25, 2014 3:00 PM
    fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Aug 25, 2014 3:12 PM Flag

    Where are you seeing $4/s FCF? It's been negative the last 2 Qs, and even if (as I expect) it swings back to the green, it will be nowhere near that number.

    If they can get anything of note out of the Canadian disasters, use that to pay down the debt.

    Given that they have a #$%$ balance sheet, the buyback is absurd. I suspect "they" are more interested in gaming the stock PPS so they can exit at a modest loss.

  • fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Aug 25, 2014 2:46 PM Flag

    Hell, they suspended it within 2 weeks of starting enrollment. So yeah, certainly not AEs.

    Sounds like Riche should get a 5 yard penalty for false start or illegal procedure :-)

  • fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Aug 22, 2014 1:54 PM Flag

    I seriously doubt the patents will hold.

    How on Earth can using the L iso of a racemic mix ever be non-obvious?

  • Reply to

    I am new here

    by pi106 Aug 19, 2014 8:40 AM
    fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Aug 19, 2014 9:42 AM Flag

    Mid Dec. would be the date to pencil in. But the FDA has been fast on some other HEP-C drugs, so do not be surprised to hear from them in the fall.

    Regardless, this is not the real play here. Virtually everybody expects the drug combo to be approved. The question for valuation is on the commercial side where it goes head-to-head with the GILD combo coming out in a few months. So instead of the common "pop and drop" that one sees in cancer drugs, I would expect a modest reaction the the FDA decision, but then a nice run up through Q1 '15 as we see revenue numbers.

  • Reply to

    Short shares break 10MM

    by bioimmunomabman Aug 11, 2014 4:06 PM
    fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Aug 14, 2014 2:40 PM Flag

    Marianne data later this year should help you out.

  • Reply to

    IR Response RE: Dividend

    by woodrowsackett86 Jul 27, 2014 4:10 PM
    fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Jul 27, 2014 6:47 PM Flag

    Though I am very anti-dividends unless a company has a solid balance sheet, there is an issue here.

    CLV (the preferred) MUST get paid their 10% (or whatever). The common is now being paid the max permitted, and if they reduce of eliminate it then there is a bit of transfer of value from CLF- CLV.

    Don't know if this is enough of a concern to factor into the decision, but it is legit.

  • Reply to


    by lafsfungoodtimes Jul 16, 2014 6:42 PM
    fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Jul 16, 2014 9:46 PM Flag

    First, any short can only go to 0, so the gain (on a single trade) is always limited tp 100%. People who post "Why would one short a stock at $X" just don't understand the concepts here.

    Second, it will not replace local therapies (surgery and radiation), it has not been tested for such, and the concept just makes no sense. Yes, it has displaced some chemo use, but so do the new hormonals (X and Z) and they are clearly doing better at such than Provenge.

    The line about "only FDA approved [cancer] vaccine" is ignorant, as there are many, and Provenge was not even close to the first. But if your info comes from a Y!MB, I guess that is what you get.

    The drug has been on the market for over 4 years. It is losing a significant amount of cash and has no plans in place to correct that. And revenue is falling. Even if they eliminated R&D they are losing cash, costs more to make and sell the drug than they get for it. More competition is coming shortly.

  • Reply to


    by cderizzo Jul 5, 2014 4:36 PM
    fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Jul 6, 2014 1:10 PM Flag

    Short/long does not matter here. Many are "talking their books" in the media.

    At least he is straightforward and admitting he is shorting it. The majority of people quoted on CNBC et all who make recommendations are doing the same, and rarely do they admit that they are simply pumping/bashing a stock for personal gain. I find that far worse.

    Don't really know why people care about these anyway. They are just like the sports betting touts; if they could really tell you how to win, they would not be doing so. They are either trying to make money selling their name, or make money by convincing others to do the wrong thing. They are #$%$.

    Sadly (at least here in the US), it is not even illegal for your broker to give "advice" that is intended to benefit them or their company and not you. That sucks.

    BTW, Chanos become a name player when he was very vocal in question Enron's books. In the meeting before admitting massive fraud, Kevin Lay called off the Q/A and explicitly said he would not provide a forum for people such as Chanos. But anybody with a clue knew Enron was BS, so this was no big find by him.

    His fund took a serious hit last year, and is presumably well down this year (have not looked).

  • Reply to

    Next catalyst

    by stocktechdoc Jun 13, 2014 3:30 PM
    fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Jun 16, 2014 12:52 PM Flag

    The royalty rate is a little unclear as it is both tiered, and also only on the ENTA portion of the cocktail (the latter itself is unclear). But one could be safe with a 5-6% of total ABBV sales.

    Estimates for ABBV sales seam to run 3-4B/year. So we are looking at the 150-240M/y range. There are a lot of analysis who seam to be of the "GILD is God" mindset, so some may think the number will come in lower.

    The kicker though is the there is also debate on how long the revenue stream will continue. To some extend there is a pool of existing customers that will drive this, and how that plays it is up for debate. And there are future gen products on the horizon (though ENTA has one also, so that can play either way).

    So the present valuation might well be a risk adjusted $150M first year revenue. We lose the launch risk (slight as that is) by EOY, and have the first full Q in next winter. Hopefully all goes well, and we are sitting around $70.

  • Reply to

    Next catalyst

    by stocktechdoc Jun 13, 2014 3:30 PM
    fib1_1_2_3_5 fib1_1_2_3_5 Jun 13, 2014 11:22 PM Flag

    The FDA approval later this year might be a trading pop. But the real next catalyst will be ABBVs Q1'15 numbers.

44.01+0.44(+1.01%)Aug 29 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Exelixis, Inc.
NasdaqGSFri, Aug 29, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
Splunk, Inc.
NasdaqGSFri, Aug 29, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
Hi-Crush Partners LP
NYSEFri, Aug 29, 2014 4:04 PM EDT