For the past few days I think the shorts have started to bring the stock down only to see that later on others who have a better idea of what is coming down the line scooping up more shares.
As expected, higher spending levels in support of our expansion plans pressured our earnings throughout 2014, as we fast-tracked assembly of the talent, assets and infrastructure required to take our business to the next level," continued Reichental. "Having completed this investment phase, we expect to recover our operating leverage and expand our profitability throughout 2015."
"My general experience with these companies is that the dreamed-of “short squeeze” does not often materialize with these binary events. Far more often than not, when the shorts make a major move in advance of such a binary event, it’s because they have it right (data leak?)."
How could that be when I believe statistical data about shorting is that an average of 80% lose money when they short stocks?
loss of 35 cents vs analysts ave of 36 cents.
revenue of 19.6 M vs analysts of 17.27M.
Not that these figures are the most important issues. However, I found HR to be very enthusiastic during the presentation and the conference call.
One item that I thought was interesting was when one analyst asked what if 102 did not prove improved survival. Could 102 be still a viable alternative due to its lower side affects. I believe HR implied it definitely could be a factor for possible approval.
Excellent find qdelfan. Thanks.
Barber says Vertex didn’t make an announcement because “formulation work and regulatory discussions have been ongoing” since the deal was struck, and it “wanted to communicate about the VX-210 program when we had further clarity on the development program and next steps.”
Vertex expects to provide those details when it starts the next trial of the drug later this year, he says.
I think you can extrapolate data from the language they used. Based on their news release ALO-02 is only "abuse deterrent formulation." Definition of deterrent is "a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something."
However, 181 has a " unique molecular design of the polymer drug conjugate (that) also prevents conversion of NKTR-181 into a rapid-acting abusable form of an opioid."
A world of difference between "discourage" and "prevent."
"you didnt buy low and sell high. Thats CG's fault??."
When investors find out about a stock, as part of their due diligence they look at what the CEO has said and is saying about his/her company and its products. Based on that information a person may decide a stock has a good chance to appreciate. In the biotech world it is very difficult to know when a stock is low or high. Biotech stock valuation is not like valuing a stock in an industry that has a stable sales and earnings -- it is based on the value of what is in the pipeline.
Hope this helps.
Whether he is badmouthing NKTR stock of pretending he is buying I always give his posts and also his other identity posts a thumb down because this guy is either a juvenile, imbecile or idiot. However, I don't waste time directly responding to his idiotic posts. It is a waste of time and by responding to him, whether positive or negative!, he gets a rise.
corona, yo funny man. I like that. hehehe
Give him a raise? I am assuming you are not kidding. If so please give me a break. I am sitting here with a big loss and you want to give this incompetent person a raise?
Although I am no fan of the FDA, the problem stems with Chris' incompetency. He should have asked more pointed questions as to what they wanted and required rather than having fuzzy meetings during which he did not nail the regulators as to the specifics they needed for approval.
The reason for employee count having gone down is due to the discontinuation of Incivek. The company wisely laid off about 360 employees that were connected to that drug.
Does anyone know what the Gardner brothers are saying about 3 d printer stocks now? Based on their recommendations I invested in xone and DDD and have a lot of losses. Last year I complained in a Motley Fools post and I got a response that I should be a "long term investor" implying in the long term these stocks will rebound to their former glory. I was so #$%$ that I did not even bother to respond by asking what their definition of long term was.
I guess it amounts to live and learn -- don't buy a stock that has gone up and up and up just because some idiots from wall street keep hyping it.
"Down again. In an up market."
First of all, most biotechs have been going down albeit not as much as VRTX. One reason could be that those stocks that have appreciated a lot usually get hit harder than the rest. Unfortunately this does not provide solace for those who have recently bought shares. Myself, I had a good position from last year in the 60's but unfortunately added shares since VRTX was about 120 a few weeks ago. With this stock one needs to be a long term investor. Just my 2 cents.
"However, I think that the interim VX-661 Ph 2b trial reading was inconsistent with previous results. This was a tiny trial with only 20 people receiving the drug combo"
If so, are they not required to disclose the results, nevertheless, and give their reason as to why we should not pay attention to the unexpected low results? Another question, if the phase 2b numbers were so small that management could ignore the results why then run such a small numbers of patients? Also if they were so sure that the results would be good why not just skip the phase 2b and go straight to phase 3 by saving a lot of time and also the cost?
I am not criticizing the management but I am just trying to find out the reason behind the management's actions and disclosures.
Third, thanks for the info. yahoo chose not to report that,
Anyway, it is just crazy. One wonders about analysts' opinions.
4 analysts read the same quarterly report and listened to the same conference call. One upped target from 129 to 155, one reiterated buy, and two downgraded to a hold. As I said it is just crazy!
"does this make sense? What is it that they do not want us to know?"
Papa, I think, his statement was probably based on extrapolating the 2013 phase 2 results of Ivacaftor +661. Of course, I could be wrong.
However, if in fact he was basing it on the recent phase 2 data which has not been officially reported then he may have violated the proper disclosure rules in my opinion. Again I could be wrong about that too.