You have no idea what you are talking about. The CT was filed so they wouldn't have to disclose their purchase commitment for a drug ingredient and how much they are paying for it. Please refer to the exhibit in the 10Q specified in the CT. The agreement is between them and Mallinkrodt and I'm sure mallinkrodt doesn't want other competitors to know what the purchase price is either. The agreement runs through 2016. Please stop you sound silly.
Why would you sell the stock if its trading at a discount to the NAV. You are aware that FB has doubled from the June 30 NAV and they were carrying TWTR at a 10B valuation. If I'm not mistaken are both of those not doubles doubles? NAV was 12.87 at June 30. Now there is clearly gives and takes in the rest of the portfolio, but think about it, more than 20% of the portfolio has now doubled, and the stock closed at 13.44. Why do you think they postponed the earnings call? Clearly they will try to communicate the NAV based on where TWTR has closed. I will not sell stock, and I will probably buy more if it does go to 10. This is nothing more than sell the news, don't get shaken out!
you could have stopped reading after he called it DHA....clearly the rest was going to be more rubbish.
No horse in this race, but I'm always drawn to names that are blown up to see if its warranted. I have gone through the FDA document to try to understand all the fuss. It appears to me that part of the issue with the reaction is the hypothesis of the FDA reviewer that the results are "overstated" because of the use of the mineral oil in the placebo arm. So if we start there, what the FDA reviewer is saying is that the mineral oil some how inhibits the uptake of the statin. So I've done of search of all the literature on Simvastatin (most used statin in the trial) and I have found NOTHING in the medical literature or databases that states there is any interaction between the statin and mineral oil. There is also nothing in the label of any of the statins warning that mineral oil intake inhibits the uptake of the statin. So I find it very curious that the reviewer can make this statement when there is no evidence of any interaction between the two. So the question is, why would the reviewer come to this conclusion that the benefits are "overstated" because of the mineral oil and statin in the placebo arm if there is no evidence that mineral oil has any interaction with the statin drug class? I don't get that one bit. Hopefully, the docs on the panel address this, because as is, the data is pretty impressive.
How do you know they were referring to the entire study? Are you clear...I'm not long this thing nor short. But just watching the headlines, its clear that a lot of the statements have been taken out of context from a 115 page document. An yes, we are referring to the same paragraph.
that was the 2mg dose....nobody, not even the subscription services read anything. Its the 4mg dose that matters.
I like the math. Did you take into consideration the convertible shares on an if issued basis. I thinks important. The dilution will cause NAV to be a bit less is my guess.