Arrested for insider trading/manipulation, that is.
Not saying it's going to happen, just wondering. Would the decision still have to happen by Thursday even though clearly the research, briefing docs, and adcom were all tainted? Would the decision be delayed for a re-do without taint? Or would it be an automatic approval, like Ken Kam's "mistrial"?
Second-day spike would be because of margin calls going out on the night of Day 1 to shorts who didn't cover then. Certainly the opportunity is there.
So, in the event of an approval, longs would be well served to set no limit orders below $200.
"Don't sell until you see the (bloodshot) whites of their eyes."
Yet the stock is going vertical at this very moment. How do you explain that?
He'll say he was in it to fix the injustice, not for the profit.
Besides, it was mostly his investors who are taking it in the rear. The beauty of the hedge fund model (for the hedge fund managers) is that they collect a fee on the amount of money under management PLUS a share of any profits (but, surprise surprise, they don't give back a share of the losses!).
Oh, and what about the Oppenheimer guy who is still very bullish on SRPT? Same source: "If you copied Christopher Marai's recommendations since 2009 and opened each position for the duration of 1 Year, then 50% of your transactions would have been profitable with an average return of 9.0%"
So, who you gonna believe?
Actually, according to tip ranks, "if you copied Gena Wang's recommendations since 2014 and opened each position for the duration of 1 Year, then 28% of your transactions would have been profitable with an average return of -15.9%."
Maybe she keeps her job because, predictably, you can make money by going against her calls. You just have to be in on that little secret to share in the profit.
(Read the whole thing before you judge me!)
I was once told a story about one of the great short-selling traders in Wall Street history.
This gentleman took a huge short position in a stock trading at $10/share and then calmly proceeded to board a vacation cruise of the Americas. This was in the days before cruise ships had internet and mobile phone coverage on board so our friend was entirely cut off from any news while at sea.
After a relaxing few days, the ship pulled into Havana (yeah, this was before Americans weren't allowed to go there, before they were allowed again). The trader called into his office. They told him that the stock was up to $20 and asked if they should stop out and cover. He said, "No, that dog is going down."
A couple of days later, the ship pulled into Trinidad and the trader called into his office. They told him that the stock was up to $30 and asked if they should stop out and cover. He said, "No, that dog is going down."
The trader continued to relax for a stretch until the ship reached Rio de Janeiro. The trader called into his office. They told him that the stock was up to $40 and asked if they should stop out and cover. He said, "No, that dog is going down."
Our hero enjoyed his day in Rio had no problem relaxing on the ship for the next day or so. At that point, the ship docked in Buenos Aires and the trader called into his office. They told him that the stock was up to $50 and asked if they should stop out and cover. He said, "No, that dog is going down."
The trader then had a wonderfully relaxing week of radio silence as the ship made its way back to New York. Upon arrival, the trader found out that the company had gone bankrupt and its stock was trading for mere pennies. "I told you that dog was going down. Now we cover."
Such conviction in the face of tremendous adverse events reminds me of those like the Oppenheimer guy who has backed it even after the BDs and the ADCOM. Will he be as right in the end?
Well, the first results are in and Senator Rubio is indeed committed. Props to him!
What a day - the Feuerstein article, the WSJ editorial, and Rubio's speech on the Senate floor. Talk about keeping hope alive ... if the drug is rejected after all of today's happenings (and, sadly, I still fear that is more likely than not), the ups and downs that the poor patients and families have been through will be overwhelming. If the FDA is going to reject it, they should do so immediately and not let the real stakeholders go through any more trauma. Their lives are already hard enough.
Are they committed to this cause or just interested in it?
What's the difference? When you had bacon and eggs for breakfast this morning, the chicken was interested in the cause but the pig was committed.
It is very easy to sign your name to a letter that somebody else wrote. It takes more commitment to actively chase down Woodcock and other FDA execs to get in their faces about what FDASIA was enacted for, how there were no negative side effects in the trial, and how the boys need the drug -- even if it means putting aside the votes of the ADCOM. A word about how the negatively stacked wording of the voting questions reduces some of the meaning of the ADCOM votes wouldn't hurt either.
Will any of them do this? If ever there was a time for DMD cure supporters to lobby Congress in support of Eteplirsen, it is now -- more so than before the ADCOM meeting. The only chance for approval at this point is AGGRESSIVE lobbying by Congressional representatives.
Well, reading the analyst reports today, those experts still allow a 5-10% chance of Woodcock granting the accelerated approval. I have no idea where they get those numbers from; they're supposed to be experts. All I can say is that 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 is big enough not to require a miracle. And it's a lot better than the 1 in 1 million that got the dude in "Dumb and Dumber" so excited. So we've got that going for us, which is nice.
I wish you were right but don't be delusional. She made conciliatory statements so as not to seem that the conclusion was forgone but remember the most damning part of the FDA presentation was preceded by the statement that it was prepared with the participation of "all levels of management" at the FDA. That means it didn't go out as nasty as it was without her approval.
The ONLY chance for approval now is if enough (and well-enough connected) Senators intervene at the level of Woodcock's boss, whoever that is. That or (and?) a miracle.
I wish you were right but ... I can't rule out that the FDA would discard even a completely positive outcome at the AB. There is no approval question, why do you suppose that is? So they can still reject in spite of everything. Bloomcock or whatever her name is doesn't report to Congress, she reports, eventually, to Obama. And the Democratic party is still on its drug-companies-are-evil trip. She can do whatever she wants and Congress can't do anything except call her into a hearing to insult and yell at her.
Please someone tell me I'm wrong.
Now, I repeat my "Dumb and Dumber" quota:
"So, you're telling me there's a chance????"
How u like me now?
google it ...
So, you're telling me there's a chance????
Well, do you guys know anything about options? This would have recently been a classic opportunity to buy straddles or strangles, so you win with either a big up or big down move (anybody believe that we'll see neither?). If you buy a straddle or strangle, then you are buying both a call and a put. Whoever sells you the put may well short the underlying stock as a hedge. So, tons of straddle/strangle buying (which looked really appealing) could lead to a big increase in the short position, without the people taking those positions "knowing something."
In any case, the stock seems to have gone from about 12 to about 20 (a 65-70% increase) in the last 10 weeks or so, **while** that huge short position was building. It stands to reason, given the price increase, that even more people were going long than shorting. Do you think all those longs "know something?"
Hi, if anyone has any knowledge about this, it would be great to share.
1) I know when the meeting is - but when will the adcom's decisions be known? Do they vote on their questions right out in public at the meeting? Or do they vote secretly later?
2) If they don't get an approval question, do the committee members still have an opportunity to state such opinions in more of a freeform fashion?