You're dead bored with the dead board?
I admit I was hoping to get some insight why the PPS is still plummeting. Who on earth wants to sell at 65 or 66? Who in tarnation hasn't yet grasped this is a poor short idea?
When CRM comes down for accounting "malpractice" (I say when not if), I think it will be a massive blow to CRaMer's reputation, because he and Marc have been so publicly tight, and there's no way Cramer can pretend he didn't know how the revenues have been goosed.
There's the killer: "did not block entry into....". Most of us here bleated about that the moment Retrograde had the nerve to start up about RE034. The whole frivolous suit seems predicated on the alleged FTC investigation finding decisively against Q (fat chance). Hope Q will apply for - and get - costs.
Thanks for sharing all this with us, MKF.
freeride: Beg to differ. Recently (62-ish) looked at the implied annual return on the tied-up cash. and thought I'd make a higher rate of return just buying the stock itself.
I think selling puts is the thing to do when the stock PPS is a much higher proportion of the "true" value than it currently is. For instance I did write a few puts when PPS was 70 and then 80, ie. before Citron knocked our heads off again.
Just a preference, of course. I do understand that selling especially OTM puts can be a smashing, almost risk-free way (so we longs think...) to lock up 20 or 30% annual rate of return. But I'm honestly expecting 100 within a year (ie 50% return, as of today's close), just on the shares.
beegz: :I have enjoyed and learned from your posts. That’s admittedly a pretty absurd reason to feel like offering best wishes for a speedy recovery to your dear wife, and sympathies to you – but I do. (After all, mastershortsmeller and jonz must have family too, though I doubt if they’d post about their health problems…).
lori already did a good job poking at some of the things I was wondering about (eg. was it clear from the start she might only be on placebo), so my contribution will be something different.
As you know, I recently had quite a brush with the health system. I read online that hospitals are usually willing to take 30 cents on the $, in cash, from folks that don’t have insurance – rather than risk going through the alternatives. 30% of the inflated bills they send out is often all they get from insurance companies anyway. So don’t be in too big a hurry to cough up that 50K. The hospital I was taken to accepted about 35 cents on the $ of their bill, and almost at once too. Made me wonder if I shouldn’t have gone even lower. Just a thought, best regards.
But johnny, the 8-K ENDED that debate this morning, by saying loud and clear that AL was right, that Acthar IS deamidated ACTH, and that this amino-acid sequence is FDA-approved:
"Therefore, what the short sellers’ research firm claims to have found appears to be consistent with what is specified on the FDA-approved Acthar package insert. " (from this morning's 8-K).
Left's face is so covered in egg, you won't even be able to see its bizarre asymmetry any more (evidence of very different right- and left-hemisphere personalities, according to an old and respected theory).
one: regarding your #2, I guess the issue is closed by the following in this morning's 8-K (typo and all!):
"The amino acid sequence for “ACTH” provided in the Description section of the current FDA-approved Acthar package insert and the FDA-approved package inserts before and after Questcor’s 2001 acquisition of Acthar is, in fact, porcine deamindated ACTH(1-39) or what has been referred to by others as “deamidated corticotropin.” Therefore, what the short sellers’ research firm claims to have found appears to be consistent with what is specified on the FDA-approved Acthar package insert. "
Wish we'd all known on Friday, would have got more done besides Q research, this weekend. God bless you and MKH, for providing all your info in the darkest hour.
paco: sorry, did not see your question in the welter of new posts; obviously, if FDA had contacted Q with any notifiable (serious) matter, it would have been in an 8-K (they were not shy to ruin Q3 the last time there was such, eh?). Doctors/patients would surely have contacted media if Q had not given a satisfactory response. Come on now, give it up!
Please forgive me, but his penultimate paragraph did not pre-answer my #2 - at least for me. If deamidation (AT ANY LEVEL) is not evidence of mishandling, spoilage etc., and can and does happen to any still-effective vial, then I think Cartt was entitled to make that quite clear. At least, WE should.
paco: I must surmise that you think Citron's published conclusions about a sample of vials are not only unimpeachable, but that they can be generalized to all (or most) such vials. How then do you explain the evident failure, in 2 1/2 months, of the FDA to contact Questcor, or the prescription-filling pharmacies? How do you explain the total absence of complaints about effectiveness from hospitals and doctors?
And, yes, you bet I bought more. Be a darn fool not to.
Brilliant post, one - just Liking it was not enough. However, I am trying to clarify for myself a matter on which I hope you, or someone equally knowledgeable, can opine:
. is amidation/deamidation (at any quantitative level, if this is not merely a qualitative characteristic) an issue for either the effectiveness of Acthar or its acceptable formulation? I am assuming "no", but this could use an airing.
. is a bona fide sample of Acthar (custody-chained and all) liable to deamidation - or, per contra, is deamidation evidence of mishandling, spoilage, or some other breach of the custody chain?
Perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify the ignorance you found in the quoted remark, and its contradiction with your observations about "this drug". You've certainly got me mystified.
This may be off topic, but here is some text from a page on BioSim's (thank you, MKF) site on their prep of Generic ACTH gel:
"Our 2nd phase of development utilizes high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) processing of porcine pituitaries where we polish the active ingredient (API) ACTH to achieve a 99.8% purity using custom sorbents. Finally creating a highly purified ACTH Gel that rivals the brand name drug, ACTHAR©. "
Could it be that:
. this is where AL got the idea that Acthar MUST be highly purified ACTH (and not an "analogue")
. this is where AL got his samples
. the Mystery Lab is BioSim?
I can see a confluence of interest at any rate. Hey, if they can be scurrilous, so can I.
Yeah, south, that was the best comment I saw today too. This ex-biology prof manages to give a real insight, to non-experts, of what Q means by "there is something to the action of Acthar that even synthetic ACTH, let alone corticosteroids, cannot fully duplicate". I poisonally know 2 docs who quietly assert that, in their practices, natural ACTH worked better than synthetic.
For those who did not read the prof's comment on SA, I think he is saying: " THIS is the 'moat' Don is talking about", ie the structure/action of the molecule, and NOT some Leftist nonsense about mysterious extra ingredients (a la Coca Cola).
Me too, johny. Email = my handle at yahoo dot kom. My name is Peter Myers.
Congratulations on being one of the few here who persisted in stating - before, during and after earnings - that it was too quiet to be true, and that you thoroughly expected just the kind of renewed short-attack that we see.
The actual content was a complete 4x4 to the back of the head, for me. I feel this is like the moment in a big poker game where one of the 2 still in the hand sighs, pushes all his chips forward, and says "see you".
As someone else posted, it's hard to see how Don and Andy can both come out of this with their reputations in one piece, even if Andy can extricate himself from libel charges by claiming he was only reporting what he believed in good faith (about the provenance of the vials, etc.). And you have to assume Andy is fronting for other shorts, because if he could be tied to any of the short transactions since last cc, then his ex is not likely to be getting much more alimony.
Just a wild shot here, mho: could you have accidentally clicked on that new Remove link YMB has provided, as your mouse passed by? Strangely, the Remove link is still available, even after people reply. Who knows why Yahoo IT does what it does.
If it's really a computer-catch of your vile pump-speech, then presumably THIS thread will be gone by tomorrow too? I absolutely DO remember reading your original post, and do not find it anymore.
Yes, the simplest of searches suggests this is common practice, though tax experts suggest it may not be best-strategy. Thanks for posting.
Next question: is it mandatory for a company to DECLARE they are selling such puts (ie. SEC posting) and, if so, which ones? I have never seen Q declare it is doing, has done, or will do, this. One wonders why AAPL doesn't do it.
I must admit that I am surprised it is legal for a company to sell puts on its own stock, since controlling the outcome of such bets is RELATIVELY easy for the issuer of the underlying commodity supplied (the stock).
I posted that last summer - Nomad said it was against SEC regs to sell puts on your own company. Anyone know for sure?