This is a really stupid message board devoid of facts or seemingly ANYTHING to do with BMY, of which I am a shareholder and came here to see if I could found anything new about the company or its prospects. I feel like I turned over a rock and all these right wing... THINGS come wriggling out. Most distasteful; goodbye, good luck.
Fair value is $14? And that's because it may dilute the hapless investor? That's a powerful reason, all right.
Choo-Choo! I'm waving good-bye to you from the platform; let us know how your trip went...
Who is 100% confident of what, based on what?
Why don't you throw a bomb into a crowded theatre mr. well named dumb?
Agenus to acquire privately held 4-Antibody
Agenus announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire 4-Antibody AG. 4-Antibody has a technology platform for the discovery and optimization of fully-human antibodies against an array of molecular targets of interest. These targets include checkpoint molecules that regulate immune response to cancers and other diseases. The company has multiple preclinical immune checkpoint antibody programs targeting numerous checkpoint molecules, including GITR and OX40, as well as four additional undisclosed checkpoint programs. These checkpoint programs are being pursued through a strategic collaboration with the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Under the terms of the agreement, Agenus has agreed to acquire all of the outstanding stock of 4-Antibody for an initial payment of $10M in shares of Agenus common stock, plus additional contingent payments, payable in cash or Agenus common stock, that may exceed $40M based on the combined company achieving certain milestones. The transaction is expected to be completed by the end of February, subject to customary closing conditions.
From "Deep Capture" 2009... is it true? Who knows... but it is eerily familiar:
"...One of these analysts is named Jonathan Aschoff, and he works for a financial research outfit called Brean Murray Carret & Co. The day after the advisory panel vote, in an interview with Reuters, Aschoff made the long-shot prediction that the FDA would not approve Provenge, but would instead ask Dendreon to supply additional data showing that the treatment was safe and effective–a process that could take years. Soon after, Aschoff told other media outlets that the FDA would set a “dangerous double standard” by approving Provenge because the treatment “did not meet its primary goal in two Phase III trials.”
During the first days of April 2007, Aschoff was everywhere, continuously repeating this notion that the FDA would set a “dangerous double standard” by approving Provenge. On April 9, Aschoff reiterated his “sell” rating for Dendreon, setting a target for the stock at a mere $1.50, which implied that the stock would lose more than 90 percent of its value by the end of the year. Reuters, Associated Press, CNBC and other media dutifully reported Aschoff’s comments as though they shed light on the merits of Dendreon’s prostate cancer treatment.
Aschoff’s performance raises a few basic questions. The first is, how did a Wall Street analyst know that it would be “dangerous” to approve a medical treatment? It is an odd day, indeed, when the media turns to Wall Street for wisdom on matters of science and health.
The second question is, why was Aschoff so confident that the FDA would not approve Provenge? Given that the FDA had followed its advisory panels’ decisions in 97% of cases, and in 100% of cases involving drugs for dying patients, Aschoff’s prediction seemed rather far out. What did he know that the rest of the world did not know?
The third question is, who is Jonathan Aschoff?