It's not mutually exclusive, goldie. You could be crazy, and we agree with you. My hypothesis about today was
. a lot of bio stocks ran up (except GILD, of course, until the ABBV drug shakes out) today
. a lot of people are anticipating a smackdown for the FDA.
Completely concur, blue. Now if it would just break there, we'd obviously have some folks to sell to, here.
zieg: thanks for posting this info. Even if loko really posted it "last week", it came out like a drunk foaming at the mouth, as opposed to normal communication (yours).
That you received THREE red thumbs, simply for posting this, and only 1 green (mine being 2nd) demonstrates, to perfection, the kind of people we are dealing with here. If it is deemed to operate against the interest of Longs, then it shall be voted down, no matter the facticity or otherwise.
I actually coughed up for a year of iHub, to avoid all this, but no one posts there anymore, except to complain about the YMB :). Too funny. Come on, more-Rons, give this some red-thumbs too, just for putting your names in lights. Bah.
The Druid of Scranton, as I live and breathe! Do you mind? That horse of mine was worth $6 (93 to 87), and I'm going to beat it until it gets up again, on Wednesday morning.
DoS, I'm not clear we got diluted that much in the end. The day it was announced, we had .9 of 62 (MNK PPS), plus 30, which came to 85 or so. I was grumpy, and said so on the YMB, because I really felt we ought to get 100 for a QCOR share, whereas the shorts had us pegged back in the low 60s, if memory serves.
But when the deal closed, we got 93.60, and it's headed WELL north since then, and rightly so. As you say, the shorts are mostly gone, and I can't wait for January, so I can lighten up a holding that's still a bloated proportion of portfolio.
I am grateful for your remark about resuscitating Mp HCI ER being as simple as adding something to slow the release, so the little boogers don't act up at evening dinner, and would be grateful if anyone can confirm. The market has assumed that BX will kill all sales starting next week.
Check. My only reservation is "certainly not selling...". I've avoided selling (except for tax-loss in taxable account, and HAD planned to repurchase, mid-December), but am ready to brainstorm about it now.
Had thought 3 was current fair value, and that with a few good O numbers, and progress announced on even ONE pipeline entity - we'd get it, and soon. Am now less and less sure that is true.
Is one foolish not to switch some or all dead-money ATRS funds to GILD at 100 (for example)?? Previously, I would have stayed with some of each (both are large positions for me, though GILD has become larger since the 60-110 move), because ATRS could 50% or even double within a year, whereas it's edge-of-distribution to expect that from GILD in the same time-period. Now, am really wondering - on BOTH ends of that switch.
To be clear, my question is about PROPORTION of portfolio. I once had low-20s of % in ATRS, and that has sunk into the teens with the price, though I "averaged down" (bah - idiot). Now I am thinking I should reduce to 2-5%, since ATRS has gone from being a Hot Item (in my mind) to just another maybe-bio-spec, about like, say, BLFS, DVAX, NBS, NSPR. Thoughts, anyone? Or just red-thumbs?
They're not that impressive to anyone, camry, but there's 2 types of people in this world: (1) those that just make a clean breast of it, such as you and me and...(2) those that will give you red thumbs for saying it, because it hurts their pride - or something.
Many here (including us) thought that some chunk that used to be reckoned had gone missing, and might be restored at any time. There's a CLEAR discontinuity of trend between 10/3 and 10/10, and that has not recovered to this day. Save for 1 week, 10/3 is still the all-time high.
The trend in "new" is especially limp, and makes me wonder whether some chunk of the sales force ( an entire particular region - or fellas loyal to Jooste, or ???) was either let go, or quit - and they're still hiring newbies and bringing them up to speed. Or is it a Symphony thing? Needless to say, we're not going to hear a peep from Antares.
For the rest, I'm going to respond to bindroy...hope you're rehab is picking up better than O sales.
Your stupidity is simply breathtaking. You openly (again) doubted that JH had said "50%". I told you to check on it, by asking him directly whether he said it. Your retort is once again to start up about whether it was TRUE when he said it. Can you really not understand? Solve your own problem, boy.
The other "argument" of yours is simply teenaged again. I leave it to you to pick holes in it, if and when you turn 20. You are not worth talking to, but I made a last check here before bed.
Adieu, nam. I think you've got something in common with loko, and that is that you both could be so much more, but you waste your own time. But mine, no longer!
Listen, a**hole, you have no need to doubt or believe. Let it be your manhood initiation ceremony to give JH a call, Monday morning, bright and early, before others call who won't be wasting his time. Ask him:
. did you or did you not, about a month ago, tell a fellow with an English accent, named Peter Myers, that the institutional % was "now" (ie. then) up above 50%, but that we wouldn't see it till January (he should have said February, if Nasdaq is to be used).
Explain that he came on the YMB and said you did, but that you don't believe it, and that you've been tormenting everyone here with this tiresome topic, ever since.
I would call him, but I do not CARE A FIG what the blessed institutional % is, and don't fancy wasting his time any further. Now leave everyone alone about this, already. My God, you're the dullest person on this entire board, I'd rather read davis.
I was your first greenie, just to show I have no hard feeling that you're ignoring me now. Having no alert for Antares filings, I was grateful you do.
So much for keeping costs down, eh? Sigh, had hoped the rutting-moose behavior could be mutually abandoned for live-and-let-live.
Well, it's possible management are liars as well as poor organizers/speakers. All I "know" is that the usual short/FUD suspects squealed that the data showed failure, whereas people that actually have a clue say the data were overall very good, and that FDA letting them go to P3 is a shoo-in (please explain to nammuang what that means, because I have him on igg now - loko, too).
To answer camry: I bought more at 3.70 today, having already under-estimated how much it could fall, by covering my $5 long-puts way too early and buying more shares at 4.90.
You know the deal. There's no way to value a company at that stage until they get permission to sell some cells, because we don't know the probability they will succeed on melanoma or heart P3s. I feel good about them at these prices, but it's not gonna put bread on the table this year or next (unless...partner or buyout).
Totally agree with your last para. Re. the movie-review analogy, it's not so much the "I didn't like the sequel" as giving it an 'X' rating where last night it had a PG rating, and the busload of children must be turned away at the door. The cinema lost the revenue.
If I were M's lawyer, I would say: "the FDA's position is inconsistent here. They say that the insta-reclassification necessitates no change in behavior binding on anyone, whereas IN FACT it puts M out of business. If the FDA felt their decision had no binding effect (was merely an expression of opinion, based on their view of accumulating evidence), why the need to rush it through, without the usual due process? Even the FDA is not claiming an overriding safety issue."
In practice, and as others have said, the FDA must have had a reason for this, and its implication is sinister for Mallinckrodt. They are not likely to prevail against the FDA in the scientific-evidence jousting, unless the political puppeteers pulling the FDA's strings change THEIR view.
Boo, whogo. The company just took the unprecedented step of issuing a clarficatory PR against the FUDdy interpretations (Feuerstein, that maw-ron on SA this morning, etc.) of the data. They state that the change in endpoints was negotiated with FDA LAST JULY, ie long before the data were unblinded or even known.
The data were very encouraging and there was clear evidence of stat-sig in all other legs but the SPECT perfusion thing which, it was agreed with the FDA BEFOREHAND, _didn't matter_.
They're going to keep observing the 161 for another 6 months, don't know whether that delays the P3 negotiations with FDA? In any case Neostem has other irons (P3 melanoma) than this, and also the manufacturing business. You know all that.
Everyone agrees that management has not helped themselves, and that PPS is not going to do much until the NBS10 P3 details are announced, and/or they get a partner offer (Baxter) - but the PPS seems a deal (steal) at this point. Trading details freely given (but they do me no honor!).
swat: thanks so much for doing such a beautiful job of the pacer instructions, and then the synopsis. I too registered, and read the docs - and contemplated writing a summary such as you already have (and a damn good job too, if I may say so).
I would only add that the FDA, in its Memorandum of Opposition to MNK's TRO Motion, does not seem to have been as rigorous as you and I, in distinguishing the QUITE SEPARATE issues of (1) the scientific case for changing the product's classification to BX (2) the legal case on the merits of imposing the change immediately, and without allowing for any backchat.
That is, the FDA Mem appears to argue BOTH (at the same time) that it was justified in unilaterally imposing the classification change (scientific evidence), AND that (now it has done that) it is contrary to established procedure to OVERRULE them merely because M is losing $$.
Although I am just another layman, it seems to me that FDA has NOT answered the contention in the TRO motion that it exceeded the law / admin procedure in unliaterally imposing the change to BX. So I would expect the judge to grant the TRO, and order the FDA and M to duke it out on the science over the next 6 months.
If we get that, then M can re-issue the guidance, and 87 becomes 93 again, on the hammer of the gavel. Just my .02 (and the pacer bill was a bit more than that).
A 700-reading wouldn't surprise me at all. It would just mean they found the missing scripts, or stopped ignoring a previously-accounted-for channel. Actually I wanted to type 800 or 900, if BOTH these things occurred, just didn't have the balls.
:) Absolutely no need for apology! My finger was on the sell-button as Cook described the sapphire-less glass, but I somehow did not press, still being a believer in Merlin and Hyperion. What a fool I was, listening, besides, to the employment and car-park statistics a la Margolis. It had to be SOMETHING big! Yup, a big idiot.
Yet I do not think you should self-blame about the process. We all knew about the Q2 difficulties, but they gave us no indication either that they had doubled-down on that in Q3, or that they would go belly-up as a result.
There will eventually be compensation to ordinary longs. I make that wild remark, simply because there manifestly was culpable deception of shareholders AND there is $$ to pay.
Apologies to all but johny for the OT material.
Maybe it's the world's BESTEST NFI !! I am not competent to judge!!! All I am saying is: what's the effing point of PATENTING it? The CONCEPT of an NFI does NOT belong to Antares.
Again, Ford can patent a Lincoln Continental till it's blue in the posterior. No one can make any car that looks, feels and acts like a LC. But Ford cannot patent the CAR concept, and GM can make and sell Cadillacs. Another company can come along with TEHIR design of a NFI between now and 2017, and Antares' patent won't ne worth the disk space it's using up. RSVP.
[And, yes, I know they must actually patent THEIR design, that is indeed worthwhile - but getting all excited, let alone having a wet dream....]
loko: I did NOT say your NFI/QST research was "trash". Your research is brilliant. I said this particular research is without value for ATRS investors, and I said why that is my opinion. You want to criticize people for ignoring your work, or claiming it is without value, but you apparently do not wish to make any substantive reply.
john: believe you are right up to a point, but I don't think the market's reaction today was merely because they did not provide an update to their October range of 6.70-7.20 for 2015 EPS - after all
. ROUGH back-of-envelope calculations showed that the complete loss of MH-ER would probably mean 35-40 cents off earnings, which is 6-7%, and right about the amount the PPS fell the day it was announced (93 to 87)
. they clearly said they would get right on it (the update) but that there were some uncertainties on just how many sales would actually be lost (plus they are fighting back against the FDA on this).
They also notably failed to provide even the level of detail on Acthar breakdown that we'd get at the QCOR cc. Yes, I understand why (they said) they would not do it at this time (overlapping time periods., but the interchanges did not seem to go all that well (they sounded coy to talk about Acthar in more than generalities).
Going beyond even that, the whole atmosphere of the Q/A seemed to be of analysts rather directly, even rudely in some cases, asking for show-me details - and being denied. The session seemed to end abruptly too.
I think there are some funds who supported MNK back up through the 80s when it was slapped down, who pared their holdings today, when they didn't quite get the reassurance they were looking for out of the cc.
your lokoness: for whatever it may be worth to you, please may I state, once-for-all: you are a uniquely-brilliant researcher. You obviously have GREAT talent (patience, diligence, attention-to-detail) and imagination in that department! No one doubts it, least of all me. You already know I'm not a big fan of the presentation-style, but you are surely not going to change that on my suggestion! Also, when you post in this petulant vein, like a Van Gogh in a garret, mooning over fabulous art-gems that no one appreciates - I think it does you no service. Were I your PR man, I'd have you knock it off.
On another, similar note, why are you (apparently) so sensitive to the opinions of others?? I think it may be worth your while to look at that. What you do has its own dignity and value (you DO seem to understand that), so who cares what punters like me and whogo might think? Dogs, not great researchers, need to be reassured all the time, by the pack.
Regarding your work in this case, on the needle-free injector (NFI): I have no specific refutations. I just don't think it's of much value to ATRS investors whether Antares patents THEIR NFI, with or without a public-domain substance in it. You yourself provided a link that clearly shows Antares are not, and will not be, the only party bringing a NFI to market. Now, if they could patent the NFI CONCEPT - that would be different! I'm sure it's not a waste of resources for Antares to produce such documents, because it documents their posture among current and future peers. But can they fend off a maker of a similar, but different, NFI, who also elects to try and do trials with testosterone enanthate - either now, or 1 week before the Antares PDUFA in 2016? Erm, no.