Recent

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

KB Home Message Board

getintoh20 96 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 8, 2016 10:17 AM Member since: Sep 21, 2007
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • getintoh20 getintoh20 Apr 8, 2016 10:17 AM Flag

    So what? Do you think he dumb enough to pay $400 a share for ICPT? Really? That would put ICPT market cap above $8 Billion. Yell right, good luck on that fool!

  • Reply to

    Here the MS report for down grading ICPT

    by getintoh20 Apr 8, 2016 9:52 AM
    getintoh20 getintoh20 Apr 8, 2016 10:13 AM Flag

    FBR Capital analyst Vernon Bernardino reiterated a Market Perform rating and $192 price target on Intercept Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: ICPT) after the FDA's Gastrointestinal (GI) Drugs Advisory Committee (GIDAC) supported accelerated approval of obeticholic acid (OCA) as a treatment for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC).

    Bernardino commented, "Although the GIDAC panelists had general concerns about the validity of serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels as a surrogate endpoint (SEP), they concluded that there was substantial evidence correlating a reduction in ALP with a meaningful positive effect on disease progression to death and/or liver transplantation in OCA-treated patients. The next steps likely involve discussions on specific post-marketing (Phase IV) confirmatory trial requirements and specific items to include in a proposed label prior to the FDA’s decision whether to approve Ocaliva (OCA’s provisional brand name), which is expected by the PDUFA date of May 29, 2016. We make minor changes in our model to incorporate insights gained from yesterday’s discussion, but as we view upside potential and downside risk in ICPT stock as evenly balanced, we remain at Market Perform."

  • getintoh20 getintoh20 Apr 8, 2016 10:06 AM Flag

    Please quite the BS, no one is going to buy out ICPT for $400. Thanks God if you get $200

  • MS downgraded Intercept Pharmaceuticals from Equalweight to Underweight with a price target of $80 (prior $100). Cautious comments from analyst Andrew S Berens followed a favorable FDA panel vote supporting approval of Ocaliva in PBC. Berens believes concerns raised in the panel could impact the drug's label and eventual launch. He also thinks restrictions in cirrhotics could impact Ocaliva's potential in NASH.

    "The panel unanimously recommended to approve the drug based on the surrogate endpoint used in the Phase 3 trial, but failed to endorse usage in advanced PBC patients given the lack of data supporting efficacy, as well as safety concerns," said Berens. "According to external consultants, the primary unmet medical need in this patient population is in patients with advanced or aggressive disease, so this lack of an endorsement by the panel has important commercial implications in our opinion, especially if the label is similarly restrictive."

    The analyst continued, "The panel also expressed concerns about usage of the drug in patients with cirrhosis given the doserelated liver toxicity noted in the program. Additionally, the panel suggested that a less frequent dosing regimen be used in PBC patients with liver compromise and that patients be discontinued from treatment that do not respond within a specified time (6 or 12 months) given safety and tolerability concerns. We think these restrictions are likely to truncate the commercial PBC opportunity significantly and impact the launch, and therefore have lowered our peak PBC revenues to $117mn from $148mn."

    Berens believes these concerns will weigh on ICPT shares ahead of the May 29 FDA action date, with potential for precautionary language in the drug's label.

    Discussing NASH in more detail, the analyst said, "...The PBC panel clearly felt the drug was better suited for early stage liver disease without any hepatic compromise, which could be an issue in NASH if the same findings

  • getintoh20 by getintoh20 Apr 8, 2016 8:01 AM Flag

    Baird pt $332 Needham & company $380 BMO Capital $230

  • 4/7/2016 Wedbush Reiterated Rating Outperform $423.00

  • What is obeticholic acid (OCA) worth?

  • Mizuho Securities downgraded Allergen from Buy to Neutral with a price target of $250.00 (from $330.00),

  • getintoh20 getintoh20 Apr 5, 2016 10:18 PM Flag

    The arbitrage has been aggressively initiated in recent weeks,then there is going to blood among those arbitragers tomorrow morning.For the purpose of argument,lets assume that all 260 million of the increase in PFE short interest is merger related .That would also mean that arbs held long 23 million shares of AGN.At current prices that translates to loss of 372 million on PFE and 1.16 b on AGN from Fridays close.IF we also assume that %30 of this is option hedged,that translates into over 1 b in total losses..If the deal looks as if it is going to be unwound,a considerable % of the (%70 unhedged * 260m)182 million short position in PFE is going to cover over the near term and the same will hold true with (%70 unhedged*23m) 16 m shares of AGN will be sold .For the last 90 days average daily volume has been running at 42.2 m while AGN's has been 3.3m.Wall St traders who do not have positions in either will smell blood and will not be charitable in their offers and bids and will try to make it as painful as possible for those holding unhedged positions.
    If you desire to go long AGN,it might be better to sell slightly out the money puts ,snce the volatility should explode.The same may apply to a lesser extent to PFE's calls

  • AGN Merger deal dead! Stock tanks under $200 tomorrow

  • Reply to

    Its done!!

    by binky_too Apr 5, 2016 9:36 PM
    getintoh20 getintoh20 Apr 5, 2016 9:53 PM Flag

    I would think it tanks it back under $200 tomorrow, but who knows maybe they crank up $20

  • The arbitrage has been aggressively initiated in recent weeks,then there is going to blood among those arbitragers tomorrow morning.For the purpose of argument,lets assume that all 260 million of the increase in PFE short interest is merger related .That would also mean that arbs held long 23 million shares of AGN.At current prices that translates to loss of 372 million on PFE and 1.16 b on AGN from Fridays close.IF we also assume that %30 of this is option hedged,that translates into over 1 b in total losses..If the deal looks as if it is going to be unwound,a considerable % of the (%70 unhedged * 260m)182 million short position in PFE is going to cover over the near term and the same will hold true with (%70 unhedged*23m) 16 m shares of AGN will be sold .For the last 90 days average daily volume has been running at 42.2 m while AGN's has been 3.3m.Wall St traders who do not have positions in either will smell blood and will not be charitable in their offers and bids and will try to make it as painful as possible for those holding unhedged positions.
    If you desire to go long AGN,it might be better to sell slightly out the money puts ,snce the volatility should explode.The same may apply to a lesser extent to PFE's calls

  • Type messageIn November, Pfizer and Allergan announced their reverse buyout merger valued at over $160 billion. Reverse mergers allow U.S. companies to move abroad to take advantage of lower taxes.

    Allergan will technically be the acquiring entity, although it is considerably smaller than Pfizer. The new company will be based in Allergan's Dublin headquarters. Under Irish tax law, the company will face an affective tax rate of 17-18%, compared with the 25% Pfizer currently pays in U.S. taxes. The new company created from the deal would enjoy annual revenues of more than $60 billion.

  • The rules have two main parts, each of which could affect the Pfizer deal. First, the government would go after what it calls "serial inverters," large companies created through multiple inversions or takeovers of U.S. companies. The government would disregard U.S. assets acquired by such companies over the previous three years.

    Consider Allergan. The company's current heft is the result of several cross-border deals, starting with the 2013 inversion of Actavis Inc., a small New Jersey-based drugmaker, through a takeover of Ireland-based Warner Chilcott PLC. What followed was a string of ever-larger deals, culminating in Actavis's $66 billion takeover of U.S.-based Allergan Inc. last year.

    Under the new Treasury regulations, those deals would be disregarded for the purposes of determining Allergan's size under the tax law. The three-year window would cover the 2015 merger of Actavis and Allergan, Actavis' $25 billion purchase of Forest Laboratories Inc. in 2014, and the original $5 billion Warner Chilcott deal.

    Stripping those deals out of Allergan's closing market capitalization of $106 billion could make it too small to serve as Pfizer's inversion partner under federal rules that disfavor lopsided mergers, or limit the financial benefits of the arrangement.

    To reap the full benefits of inverting, the U.S. company's shareholders should own between 50% and 60% of the merged entity, which requires a partner of carefully calibrated size. Above that, some restrictions apply, including rules making it harder for companies to access foreign profits. The Pfizer-Allergan deal is structured so that Pfizer's shareholders will own 56% of the company.

    Mr. Willens said the new percentage in the Pfizer-Allergan deal would be at least 60% and could approach 80%, above which all benefits of the inversion are lost.

    "It certainly puts a crimp in the deal and it's not out of the question I suppose that Pfizer would want to rethink the transaction given the dev

  • Type messageMr. Secretary, while I was preparing my remarks and my questions on cyber, I got a letter from your office to Senator Wyden and of course to the whole committee talking about inversion, which is something that everyone in this room cares about. You used the following language. You say that Congress should enact legislation immediately, make it retroactive to May 2014, to shut down this abuse of our tax system. I regard this as a ratchet up by your office to try to get this thing nipped in the bud. True?

    JACOB LEW: We've made it clear for years that we want our tax codes to have incentives for investing in the United States and disincentives for taking business out of the United States.

    On this question of inversion, I used language in my letter that's pretty strong and said we should have some economic patriotism here. It's not right to take an American firm and benefit from all the things that we do in the United States to make it a safe place to do business and then to say I don't want to pay taxes here, shift my corporate address overseas to pay a lower tax rate or no taxes.

    What my letter says is the best way to deal with it is to do a comprehensive business tax reform. We have a plan out there that would accomplish multiple goals, as you and I have discussed, that we do business tax reform, lower our statutory business tax rate, provide resources to pay for infrastructure investments and fix the problem that is causing inversion.

    In my letter yesterday, what I said was we cannot afford to wait, we need to send a signal that if we can't get comprehensive business tax reform done, we need to act on this question of inversion, that we need to do it now, and we need to do it retroactively so the businesses don't rush to do these transactions.

    JIM CRAMER: But the other day, actually, July 14th, your Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs drafted a letter to Charles...basically saying, Look, the one thing you can't do is use the IRS, because...secure provision of 7874...will close a loophole. But why can't the IRS start some sort of rule making posture, which basically says to the general counsels out there, like Chris Cox and Cad...Waller, yes, you must do what you can to do an inversion right now?

    Why can't you say, We're looking at the substantial interest provision. Because every one of the companies that are thinking about inverting right now is a mail drop, either in Switzerland or in Dublin. Just a mail drop. Nothing else. Many in the same building.

    JACOB LEW: We have looked at the tax code. There are a lot of obscure provisions that we do not believe we have the authority to address this inversion question through administrative action. If we did, we would be doing more

  • getintoh20 getintoh20 Apr 4, 2016 7:30 PM Flag

    Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said in a new statement. "This will have an important effect, but we cannot stop these transactions without new legislation. I urge Congress to move forward with anti-inversion legislation this year," Lew added.
    IRS has no power to create new laws, congress must enact & pass new law. This is nothing more then political gesturing.

  • getintoh20 getintoh20 Apr 4, 2016 6:51 PM Flag

    Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said in a new statement. "This will have an important effect, but we cannot stop these transactions without new legislation. I urge Congress to move forward with anti-inversion legislation this year," Lew added.

  • Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said in a new statement. "This will have an important effect, but we cannot stop these transactions without new legislation. I urge Congress to move forward with anti-inversion legislation this year," Lew added.

  • Reply to

    Anyone Buying at these Levels?

    by jrinvestor49 Apr 4, 2016 6:28 PM
    getintoh20 getintoh20 Apr 4, 2016 6:30 PM Flag

    Bought 100 shares at 217. Just for a trade!

  • getintoh20 getintoh20 Apr 4, 2016 4:05 PM Flag

    Some Valeant Pharma (NYSE: VRX) creditors said to resist proposal to relax loan pact, according to Bloomberg. Some lenders are said looking for higher fees and rates, sources noted.

    UPDATE - Valeant needs to get approval of the measures from over half of investors holding some $11 billion in secured loans. The company has around $32 billion in total debt.

    Creditors also want to impose some restrictions on the terms that the company is offering in its proposal, sources noted.

    Valeant didn't immediately respond to a request for commentary

KBH
13.57-0.070(-0.51%)Apr 29 4:01 PMEDT