I doubt you'll see them posted again.
I noticed someday321, who had posted the IMS data previously, deleted his id and recreated it, deleting his complete history of posts. Typically there's a clause in for-profit data services subscription agreements that prohibits republication of any data.
Update: Bloomberg published article at 3:49PM 6/29 stating FTC has stated the Anthem/Cigna deal appears to be a no go, i.e. FTC cannot come up with concessions that could be enable the deal to close.
Why the thumbs down when asking a simple question?
My take is that insiders are selling just enough to cover their tax liabilities. They are holding onto the rest of the recently awarded shares, likely waiting for $9.
The question is why aren't the Rite Aid insiders dumping all their recently awarded shares? I'm assuming they incur a 2016 tax liability when awarded stock as compensation. I'm also assuming that's what all those non-market acquisitions are at $0. It appears they are then disposing of enough shares to cover their tax obligations and holding the rest ... waiting for $9.
Am I missing something?
Took 10 months for the FTC to rule on Staples/Office Depot deal.
FTC still hasn't ruled on the Anthem/Cigna deal announced July 24. Anthem also wants to close the deal H2 2016.
Just noticed MACK's mkt cap is half from exactly one year ago, so some of the distribution occurring over the past couple weeks was likely in anticipation of the change in MACK's weighting in the Russell 3000.
My concern was EU approval of Onivyde. Based on this comment, seems approvals in process are safe:
Needham analyst Alan Carr wrote that Britain's separation from the EU will also bring regulatory complications down the road.
"Although we DO NOT expect a meaningful impact on companies with drugs NOW UNDER review by the EMA, Brexit will lead to a less efficient, more expensive, and potentially lengthier regulatory process for companies seeking approval in the EU and U.K."
Looks like they may be using a 3rd party, from the May 10Q:
our dependence on third-party manufacturers for the production of clinical trial materials and satisfactory finished product for registration;
Wondering if it will bounce again from here. Since the beginning of May, seems like there is a buyer accumulating at 6 or so. Today's volume (3M+) plus negative price correlation to major ETFs, implies there must have been a big seller... but still finding a buyer at 6.
The risk is that we are forming a bearish descending triangle where we eventually exhaust our buyer and break below 6... then then 6 becomes the strong upside resistance point. Since Apr 6, all high volume days correlate to negative price movement except for one on May 31. MACK needs a catalyst to break out of this technical trend (like data from one of its early stage trials - ped sarcoma or glioblastoma).
Wish I had access to IMS data. Without it, retail investors are flying blind.
I do, but what do I know? I'm just a retail punter.
Why would Visium want to be holding ANY inventory that must be sold? Traders would short any holdings Visium had in low float/low volume stocks ahead of their selling for an easy profit.
Business Insider broke the news AH Thursday. The YAHOO article states shareholders were notified Friday, so it would seem they should have tried to sell before the liquidation became public so other firms couldn't front-run them by heavily shorting LPCN (although if you look at the daily short volume reported over TRS, it has increased since May)
The fund told investors of its plan to close in a letter Friday. It's the most high-profile shutdown since authorities forced Steve Cohen's controversial SAC Capital to close in 2013.
Nobody seems to be brave enough to write 7.50 puts except the MM for a very inflated price. Only retail put seller I see is the 5 put for 1.25. A 7.50/10 strangle might be a good bet if puts were available at a reasonable price.
"Drug combination may extend pancreas cancer survival, trial finds"
Liverpool University-led study found GEM + Xeloda upped five-year survival rate from 16% to 29% of patients.
To see previous clinical trials for Daiichi's drug you need to search for trials by each name for the drug: U3-1287, AMG-888, and patritumab.
Another point of difference could be the heregulin cutoff.
Per the Daiichi trial: "Subjects may have high heregulin or low heregulin."
I wonder if they over-reached to ensure the indication was as broad as possible?
I seem to remember MACK mgmt. stating there was a heregulin cutoff in the MM-121 NSCLC trial, but not sure how it might compare to Daiichi's.
If I remember correctly, results from early trials were nearly identical for MM-121 and Patritumab. MACK was about ten months behind Daiichi, so something to be aware of for Q1-Q2 2017.
I think some other posters commented on why MACK may have chosen chemo over Erlotinib for the next MM-121 trial when the question was posed some months ago. For now, the market seems to be paying more attention to the CPXX buyout than the Patritumab trial failure.
Baird issues three ratings:
Expected to outperform on a total return, risk-adjusted basis the broader U.S. equity market over the next 12 months.
Expected to perform in line with the broader U.S. equity market over the next 12 months.
Expected to underperform on a total return, risk-adjusted basis the broader U.S. equity market over the next 12-months