Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Trius Therapeutics, AŞ Message Board

pylesm 248 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 1, 2015 11:59 AM Member since: Jan 6, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Can someone explain this URA etf please?

    by mess124 Aug 30, 2015 5:44 PM
    pylesm pylesm Sep 1, 2015 11:59 AM Flag

    The Solactive Global Uranium Total Return Index tracks the price movements in shares of companies which are active in the uranium mining industry. A maximum of 40 components are included which are weighted according to freefloat market capitalization. The Index is calculated as a total return index and published in USD. The composition of the index is ordinarily adjusted twice a year.

  • Reply to

    Can someone explain this URA etf please?

    by mess124 Aug 30, 2015 5:44 PM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 31, 2015 8:29 PM Flag

    URA is a passively managed ETF. You seem to be thinking that it's actively managed. Most ETFs just passively follow an index with a predefined allocation.

    From the prospectus:

    The Adviser uses a “passive” or indexing approach to try to achieve the Fund’s investment objective. Unlike many investment companies, the Fund does not try to outperform the Underlying Index and does not seek temporary defensive positions when markets decline or appear overvalued.

  • Looks like SCMP is making an acquisition to diversify away from Amtiza.

  • Reply to

    fact check - Gordo

    by sstevanage Aug 26, 2015 5:13 PM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 27, 2015 6:02 PM Flag

    CSIQ does.

    CSIQ broke out module sales to "itself" in their earnings report. Those would be modules sold to those projects it is holding on its balance sheet for a possible yieldco. The value of those projects is shown as the big increase in assets under plant and equipment.

    Does a merger between CSIQ and TSL make sense, given TSL wants to move downstream into projects where CSIQ already has a global presence... and given TSL's module business has higher margins than CSIQ's... seems a good match... and perhaps could get around EU's tariffs CSIQ is facing.

  • Reply to

    baxalta

    by dcorm05 Aug 26, 2015 10:14 PM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 27, 2015 5:26 AM Flag

    Shire's CEO has made public statements that he liked Baxalta's oncology partnerships. If you look at them, I believe MACK is the biggest in monetary terms. Remember BXLT's partnership goes beyond just MM-398. Who knows, if BXLT is acquired, Shire might go after MACK before MM-121 is partnered.

  • pylesm pylesm Aug 26, 2015 4:06 AM Flag

    CYTK: Low market cap, low avg daily volume, low options activity.... doesn't make for a good trading stock.

  • pylesm pylesm Aug 21, 2015 12:12 AM Flag

    They likely want dolcanatide for UC. We'll see if it works. So far no timeline on trial results. Possible could see a phase II trial in UC before FDA approval.

  • Reply to

    Questions to ask

    by shoenfield Aug 17, 2015 9:41 AM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 20, 2015 11:00 PM Flag

    I found the original article, as I was posting from a FierceBiotech email:

    Search for: The FDA Is Basically Approving Everything. Here's The Data To Prove It

  • Reply to

    Questions to ask

    by shoenfield Aug 17, 2015 9:41 AM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 20, 2015 10:32 PM Flag

    Here's more relevant text from the same article:

    It's also worth noting that the agency is not monolithic. The FDA's cancer division, led by Richard Pazdur, has repeatedly lowered the bar for new drugs in the name of giving some hope to severely sick patients. The agency has made a habit of approving new oncology treatments based on mid-stage data, indicating the drugs for only the most desperate of cancer sufferers and then requiring companies to hand in more results before considering expanding their labels. In diabetes, by contrast, the FDA has tightened its safety requirements in recent years, notably rejecting a new insulin from Novo Nordisk ($NVO) that had no trouble getting by European regulators.

  • Reply to

    Questions to ask

    by shoenfield Aug 17, 2015 9:41 AM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 20, 2015 10:27 PM Flag

    Not sure how accurate this is but...

    Forbes, with the help of BioMedTracker, has run the numbers on that last point, finding that the FDA has been green-lighting new drugs at an escalating rate for the past few years.

    In 2008, the agency rejected about 66% of the new drug applications it received (including those seeking wider labels for marketed products), according to Forbes' analysis. By 2014, that number plummeted to just 12%. So far this year, the agency is tracking a nearly 90% approval rate, according to BioMedTracker's tally, clearing 23 drugs and rejecting just one, Merck's ($MRK) long-troubled Bridion.

  • Reply to

    As much as I love SUNE at this level..

    by kingsalt Aug 19, 2015 4:57 PM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 19, 2015 11:41 PM Flag

    Greenspan is saying high yield bond prices will collapse, obviously causing the yield to increase on existing bonds. It doesn't mean interest rates will skyrocket. The thought is that even a small increase in interest rates could cause existing bond prices to overshoot on the downside due to lack of liquidity as fund holders run for the exit at the same time (and new banking regulations limiting liquidity in the high yield market).

    That is one school of thought. There are opposing viewpoints that see demand is still strong for yield, so the market can take a small interest rate hike. Search for this article:

    Icahn/Fink Argument Over Bond ETFs Highlights Deep Debate Over Market Liquidity

  • pylesm pylesm Aug 17, 2015 1:43 AM Flag

    Agree. I posted some tweets a couple days ago that took all of 30 minutes of DD to look at the GI drugs sold by Valeant to see how SGYP would complement their GI drugs. The exception is for the OIC indication. The advantage could be that SGYP is oral vs injectable. However given Relistor was very recently launched, I doubt Valeant would want to cannibalize it. Oddly enough, the CEO mentioned SGYP shelved SP-333 for OIC due to competitive (and other) concerns.

  • pylesm pylesm Aug 17, 2015 1:36 AM Flag

    Remember the placebo rates in the Amtiza CIC trials were greater than those in the Plecanatide trials. The placebo rates in the Linzess trial therefore appear to be the outlier among the three - they were abnormally low. It appears the patients in the Linzess trials may have had milder symptoms than the subjects in either the Amtiza and Plecanatide trials.

  • Reply to

    more insider buying

    by bigt198ou Aug 14, 2015 7:40 PM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 14, 2015 11:49 PM Flag

    Forgot to add, you might want to take a look at Nanosmart, if you already haven't done so. They are targeting rare cancers with their liposomal formulation. That could be another target for MACK that comes along with the coveted "rare disease" treatment label.

  • Reply to

    more insider buying

    by bigt198ou Aug 14, 2015 7:40 PM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 14, 2015 11:30 PM Flag

    There's a huge risk for the company if approval is denied for MM-398. It could mean Baxalta opts out of the deal. There is a no-penalty 180-day opt out at any time. That risk might keep some on the sidelines. The hostile takeover attempt of Baxalta doesn't help either. Think about where MACK would be without Baxalta.

    On the other hand, there is a huge potential gain if MM-398 is approved. If approved, other MM-398 indications should be somewhat de-risked for future FDA approvals. It will cement the deal with Baxalta and make it highly more likely an acquirer (Shire) would not opt out of the deal. The European filing would be given better odds of approval. This could translate into some unexpected price appreciation after approval.

    The PFS looks good and correlates to OS. The AE's are those associated to irinotecan. I'm betting we get approval; at worst we get a delay; no CRL.

    For what it's worth, FDA approved 10 priority review NME drugs in 2013 on the first pass; no delay. Although MM-398 is not an NME, I think that info is still relevant. Unfortunately, the FDA doesn't publish how many priority reviewed filings received CRLs, if any.

  • pylesm pylesm Aug 14, 2015 1:04 AM Flag

    This is nothing compared to what MNKD was during it's phase III and approval process. Stock dropped 50% on ADCOM notes, only to shoot back up after the ADCOM meeting... shorts all over it... still are.

  • Reply to

    Bob still confident on MM-121 deal

    by dr.cash_money Aug 10, 2015 4:45 PM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 10, 2015 5:12 PM Flag

    It sounds like mgmt. is looking for an MM-121 deal across all indications, based on that last comment where Mulroy stated MACK wanted to retain as much control (or interest?) as possible in the asset.

    I've been wondering if mgmt. would partner for only the breast cancer indication. Sometimes it is confusing to determine the extent of the partnership MACK is looking for, based on their comments.

    I'm still guessing the new guy's job is to expedite the partnership. Notice that he has a 100K performance bonus as part of his compensation package.

  • Reply to

    Earnings Call Will Be The most Important Ever.

    by itsa1188 Aug 8, 2015 7:29 PM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 9, 2015 4:52 PM Flag

    Sometimes mgmt. is their own worst enemy. After HGSI was finally acquired around 14.75/share, it was made public that Amgen made an offer around 33/share when HGSI was trading around 30 and greedy mgmt. rejected the offer. So in the end, shareholders lost more than 50% due to mgmt. greed.

  • Reply to

    CANPHAN7

    by pentiumpwr Aug 8, 2015 11:32 AM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 8, 2015 6:41 PM Flag

    I'm not in Canphan's league, but IMHO MACK just took four slugs to the gut!
    1. 40M ATM
    2. Shire hostile bid for BXLT
    3. Turnover in executive position (CFO)
    4. Biotech selloff

    Bright spot: Shire CEO likes BXLT cancer drug pipeline. MACK is a big part of that pipeline considering Pacritinib and Rigosertib don't look that strong.

  • Reply to

    Interesting!!

    by eastcoastcash Aug 6, 2015 8:31 AM
    pylesm pylesm Aug 6, 2015 4:26 PM Flag

    He was hired for this role: Head of Corporate Development. Looks like Sullivan will retain the accounting role of CFO. Looks like the board may be impatient about getting an MM-121 deal done... or as you speculate, just want to sell the company. He would seem to be competent in that role but with no previous experience. From what I've read, that role typically involves partnerships, M&A, competitive analysis. I wonder if Porter was behind the appointment. (bing: Wheeling, Dealing, and Joint Venturing: On the Job in Corporate Development)

    Amazing he's only 34. He would have had to have been practicing as a physician before he was 27. Seems like a rapid riser using MACK as a stepping stone. That article I cited implies his salary is only half what he could get in a larger company.