It is amazing that he must or his handlers must be supremely confident to continue to be aggressive with statements on small biotech. Maybe their legal team has told them that it would be worse for any future defense if they suddenly go silent or even behave. The idea is that if you have done no wrong, and that is what they claim, there is no need to change behavior. A change would be some sort of indirect admission that perhaps they over-reached a few times.
But why is it negative? I've been trying to self-educate (not self-medicate) by reading a little on negative beta for stocks and do not understand the particular disconnect with market movement action. I can understand for international companies perhaps, some commodities, utilities. OREX and VVUS both have positive beta numbers. Is there anything special about ARNA? Does it, as I surmise, have to do anything with ARNA's total share outstanding - market cap being much larger than VVUS and OREX at this juncture?
(Interesting this is from Overstock. Same company where Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock - look him up. He has some important things to say about WS).
I hope so - it would be absolutely fascinating what they would/ may uncover. I'll believe it, though, when I see and read it.
Always better a plus number than totally flat
2.8% of a larger base number WoW is a larger number (sounds like a Yogi statement)
Larger number of users means that many more people are likely to have shared experience with others
Belviq growth did not stall in the normally non-peak weight loss effort months
Belviq has not stalled like Q
All I'm pointing out is that there is truthful relevance of the importance of having a safety history. You and I are not in conflict with that notion at all. I think it is a slow process and am totally convinced at this stage. That being said, the slow, deliberate campaign method is a good one. To really educate as opposed to make it a pump and dump TV diet med with loud spokespersons like some wanted would have been and would be disastrous to the entire space. There is history to overcome and to make with a new compound.
Yes, donbee61, I too was very happy to see this information and the acknowledgments but some who have been doubters. The doc has taken a lot of abuse. That was real nice to see today. Whether his excitement for the drug is what some would call over the top is wholly another thing. He's a doc.
But it is great to know he's not merely neutral to it. He sees an impact. There are probably other medical docs convinced Lorcacserin is safe. Trust by those that do not trust it now will simply have to build over time.
sp500 - that was one great post. The medical community knows of the history or has lots of access to history on two combined compounds that have been around for many years. Lorcaserin is very, very new. Caution is not going away. So people comparing Contrived, Qsymia with Lorcaserin (Belviq) sales need to carefully take into consideration what is very succinctly but effectively explained by sp500 in his IV message 126261. This makes the sales of Belviq so far seem that much more impressive.
Here is recent short interest reporting that shows short interest has generally been in decline. The most recent report in comparison to the 8/29/2014 report shows that short interest went back up, but very slightly.
(this recent short data compilation summary was copied and pasted here - retrieved from grepgrep's recent IV posting)
Below is Yahoo finance record keeping one can find easily on the Yahoo finance portion of its site. Date, traded volume, and open/close price per share.
9/18/2014 Thursday 10,975,800 MM, 3.93 / 4.24
9/19/2014 Friday 14,201,800 MM, 4.29 / 4.16
Maybe additional shorts covered during the larger volume trading days?
The era of social media impact on marketing - and other large instantaneous social data base communication methods between friends, family, colleagues and industry has not been around for 15 years, perhaps some would argue only 10 years or less.
This can be a two sided sword of course. Social media for sure is not all positive as most can personally attest to when they think about all the damage it has done to many things, to lives, to companies, to an industry. It has the good and the bad. It depends on how one uses, how the public use it, and self-police it.
Not too many novel compounds for such a gigantic pool of qualified candidates, for treating a health crisis (world) have had the same opportunity as a B, nor the potential, to exponentially take off with the help, whether wanted or not, of social media. This is a wild card in the analysis of where this could go.
There is no real methodology, past business cases with similar meds of this significance (let's face it, obesity is all over the news right now and not just to those looking for news that are interested in treating the disease) that can predict if and when social media will grab onto something. So, investing against the success of something like a B with social media out there as "a" wild card, with such a large group of people that could have an interest in using weight loss meds for obesity treatment is in my judgment a risky bet. It became more of a risk once the drug went to market. It becomes a larger risk with each growing sales month that passes, with safety and successful talking users.
I imagine that the shorts and the really savvy investors always play both ends and have already taken this into consideration. This is a new era.
This whole journey has had so many unpredictable turns, I would not place wagers on it one way or the other. I concur though, it would appear they should turn away. I just hope B can one day resubmit and not have a clouded marketplace by the likes a Contrave which in the end does not help the safety first cause that Europe wants, supposedly.