From the released **income statement**, I gather that the numbers were:
Net loss per share: -0.22
Non-GAAP net loss attributable to ordinary shareholders: -$14M
Non-GAAP net loss per share: -0.07
Why does this contradict the number of -0.37 per share in the top of the press-release as well as other news?
Not true. FDA never revoked O's approval, so FDA cannot legally interfere in O's reintroduction.
I thought you self-proclaimed to be a lawyer -- well ... "self" says it all anyway.
Dystrophin need not be the only way to correct DMD. There is no reason to believe that.
I think to be honest to ourselves -- competition will crop up over time, but most of it will take 3-5 years to come to fruition, if at all. If it does, by that point, SRPT would be too big or successful (hopefully) to be dented by an competition.
The best (least speculative) times to buy SRPT were in July 2012 (when it opened 100% to 7.3) and last week (when GSK's drug failed). Anytime before 7/12 was speculative.
I am in it since 3 years (bought for stupid technical reasons). But, doubled on that eventful day in July 2012, and have been steadily buying since then (24, 30, 40). Incidentally, my wedding was on THE day in 10/2012 (talk about an auspicious event!). I was all set to buy more at 48 10/3 morning, but didn't pull the trigger.
I think the last two weeks have once again changed the perception of the company. Wall Street doesn't like hindrances -- and I believe they are mostly gone now. I really believe this will get very close to $100 in 6-9 months.
You are clueless. Its called wishful imagination.
The exact prices at which trades are executed at are determined by the MM -- not by an individual trader.
I am invested HEAVY in the stock, and I HAVE though of exactly the above risk. My thesis:
(i) Yes, anything is possible in medicine (or in general in any stock). Yes, the stock can crash for one of many reasons. That's the GAMBLE I am taking. Is it worth it? Time will tell.
(ii) More importantly, because DMD is a FATAL disease, even if one of the patients were to DIE (God forbid), the stock/drug will STILL SURVIVE. Read it again. Yes, since the disease is fatal anyway, if the mortality of the drug is say 10%, it may still be worth the risk.
In either case, anything is possible in the stock market (and life, in general). You gotta play the odds though.
You think shorting the stock is playing in the right direction of risk? Who knows. Time will tell.
Exxon-skipping therapy of Prosensa failed == Its possible that a large trial of etep may fail.
The case for dystrophin as a surrogate marker weakens == AA less likely.
What does it sound like to you?