Sun, Feb 1, 2015, 3:21 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed


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

Seattle Genetics Inc. Message Board

raysfrom98 454 posts  |  Last Activity: Jan 30, 2015 11:25 AM Member since: Mar 3, 2011
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Tick tock to start of BMY-CLDX Varli trials.

    by weightbayou Dec 10, 2014 1:04 PM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 10, 2014 2:04 PM Flag

    Not on it's own, but the combined accumulation of Celldex good news, combined with the ever increasing belief that Celldex is poised for success on many fronts, that, IMO, will move the SP higher.

  • Use the link below.

    And this was basically pre Varli good news, and pre ReACT good news, in reverse, this was prior to 1135 being shelved. Celldex is a much stronger company today, as compared to when he recorded this assessment. He probably doesn't know a thing about the ReACT trial, Varli (pairing with BMY and others), or any other positive recent developments. But for someone that used Rindo, and the fact that Celldex has a big pipeline, with multiple shots on goal, as the main reason to buy Celldex, you would think he would at least look at where Celldex is with the science today. He obviously has not looked closely, lately.

  • raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 9, 2014 12:49 AM Flag

    Part 2 on LC

    "Importantly, the Laffer Curve does not say whether a tax cut will raise or lower revenues, nor does it predict that any and all tax rate reductions would necessarily bring in more total revenues. Instead it says that tax rate reductions will always result in a smaller loss in revenues than one would have expected when relying only on the static estimates of the previous tax base. This also means that the higher the starting tax rate, the more dramatic the supply-side stimulus will be from cutting the tax rate. It is possible that this economic effect will swamp the arithmetic effect, causing an actual increase in tax revenue.

    However, the Laffer Curve does not say that “all tax cuts pay for themselves” as many people claim. What is true is that tax rate cuts will always lead to more growth, employment, and income for citizens, which are desirable outcomes leading to greater prosperity and opportunity. There is, after all, more to fiscal policy than simply maximizing government revenue."

    Essentially, there is a diminishing return in the extremes. Too much or too little. Laffer attempts to help us realize the virtue of the Goldilocks effect, Get it?

  • raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 9, 2014 12:38 AM Flag

    Clinton's Surplus? Oh really? I think you should pay more attention to what happened in the republican house and senate after two years of Clinton trying to repay his leftist cronies.
    The American people put the Republicans back in charge of both houses and in control of the pocket book. A reality that saved the Clinton WH. Clinton was at least smart enough to pivot right, making the Republican ideas look as if they were his own. The media was all too willing to assist in giving Clinton the credit for actions taken by the house and senate. Though Clinton did say "welfare as we know it, is over."
    You remember the contract with America, don't you?

    American voters have now done the same with BHO, that little fight starts next year, but BHO is doubling down on the leftist ideology. The Republicans will do what they can to stem the bleeding, but it may not work with BHO.

  • raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 9, 2014 12:12 AM Flag

    Wrong!!!! You leftist always lie about supply-side economics.

    From the Laffer Center
    "The Laffer Curve is one of the main theoretical constructs of supply-side economics, and is often used as a shorthand to sum up the entire pro-growth world view of supply-side economics. However, the Laffer Curve itself simply illustrates the tradeoff between tax rates and the total tax revenues actually collected by the government.

    As drawn, the Laffer Curve shows that at a tax rate of 0%, the government would collect no tax revenue, just as it would collect no tax revenue at a tax rate of 100% because no one would be willing to work for an after-tax wage of zero. The reason for this is that tax rates have two effects on revenues: one is arithmetic, the other economic. The arithmetic effect is static, meaning that if rates are lowered, the tax revenues per dollar of tax base will be lowered by the amount of the decrease in the rate, and vice versa for increasing tax rates. In other words, this is what happens when a hypothetical 1% tax collects $1 million, so people assume that a 2% tax would collect $2 million… and a 5% tax would collect $5 million. Likewise, under the same scenario people would similarly assume that a .5% tax rate reduction would collect only $500,000.
    The economic effect recognizes the positive impact that lower tax rates have on work, output, and employment, which provide incentives to increase these activities. By contrast, raising tax rates penalizes people for engaging in these activities. The Laffer Curve demonstrates what happens when the economic and arithmetic effects collide, explaining why a tax increase may reduce taxed activity and raise less revenue than otherwise predicted, just as a tax cut may increase taxed activity and raise more revenue than otherwise predicted."

  • Reply to

    Cramer asked about CLDX again today

    by richrd_cc Dec 8, 2014 10:08 PM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 8, 2014 11:58 PM Flag

    I heard him, he has no clue about Celldex at this time. Someone needs to remind the man about the glowing report he once gave about Celldex.

  • raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 8, 2014 11:50 PM Flag

    He may be looking at the Argentine Socialist Recovery Model.
    No private accounts are safe from confiscation.

  • raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 8, 2014 11:47 PM Flag

    Stimpy, you eediot!

  • raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 4, 2014 4:25 PM Flag

    "Based upon initial studies in breast cancer and melanoma, we believe gpNMB could be a very important target in oncology, especially in melanoma. Despite significant advances in the field, metastatic melanoma has one of the fastest growing incidence rates and large numbers of patients still require additional treatment options," said Thomas Davis, MD, Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer of Celldex Therapeutics. "In a previous study of patients with metastatic melanoma that did not select for gpNMB expression, we observed an impressive 15% overall response rate and a progression-free survival of 3.9 months in all-comers. Upon further analysis, the data suggested a trend toward prolonged PFS in patients with high gpNMB expression. Fundamental to this new study and planned future studies of glembatumumab vedotin in additional indications, we will evaluate whether potential clinical benefit is linked to the degree of gpNMB expression." - See more at:

  • Reply to

    Not what i had hoped for

    by mjacob56 Dec 3, 2014 8:35 PM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 4, 2014 10:41 AM Flag

    Tack, I made my first buys in the $4s, of course I am optimistic.
    Don't forget to think longterm as well. Don't forget what you heard in the ReACT CC.
    We are only here for the ride, we control nothing.

  • Reply to

    Not what i had hoped for

    by mjacob56 Dec 3, 2014 8:35 PM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 4, 2014 10:27 AM Flag

    Yes Temp. Celldex will set up preliminary conversations with FDA about the stunning ReACT study findings to date, then wait for final results from ReACT (about 3 to 6 months). If those results hold up, and according to CC, survival results may get even better, then they take the final ReACT trial results before the FDA for early approval. Considering the unmet need, and the ReACT results to date, I like their chances.

  • Reply to

    Not what i had hoped for

    by mjacob56 Dec 3, 2014 8:35 PM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 4, 2014 10:16 AM Flag

    You changed your tune NIck. I suppose that means you purchased more puts, and want to cash in before another leg up.

  • Reply to

    Not what i had hoped for

    by mjacob56 Dec 3, 2014 8:35 PM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 3, 2014 9:03 PM Flag

    I think we will be approaching $40 or greater per share before they raise cash again, and selling more shares is not the only option they have going forward. IMO

    It would help to know who is holding large portions of the short position in order to know why the upward momentum has stalled. I suspect some institutional long holders have been playing both sides of the fence and got caught by the unexpectedly great ReAct news. They thought they had more time, and could wait for the P3 Rindo trial results before covering, especially after the delay in the Glemba trial. Releasing the so so bad news first was a great move by M. It trapped the shorts, whether intended or not.

    At the moment the first hint of good news comes from the first Varli paired trial, look out, you better have your shares intact.

    This is setting up for a beautiful run for many years to come.

  • Reply to

    Beutiful close for a short

    by dorriswelch Dec 3, 2014 4:02 PM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 3, 2014 4:40 PM Flag

    my2, you posted this on the 5th of Nov, when SP was $12.98. OUCH!

    "Floger doesn't look like any $24, $18, $16 any time soon. You need to be pumping more ! Hows dat 200dma working for you. I have a good trading course for you if ya need it. HAHAHA"

    It has mostly been going up ever sense. But I see you are still talking about 16 and 18.

  • Reply to

    Anemic Volume Today

    by j20tower Dec 3, 2014 2:33 PM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 3, 2014 4:32 PM Flag

    No, not new. Apparently you don't understand what Celldex just did. You are playing with fire.
    Hopefully you are only buying flaming puts.

  • raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 3, 2014 4:17 PM Flag

    Cyoung, that was an epic beating your party took. It was like the President was rejected by his own party, and his party was rejected by the people.

    Heck, Maryland and Illinois elected a Republican Governor. Maryland and friggin Illinois!

  • Reply to

    Anemic Volume Today

    by j20tower Dec 3, 2014 2:33 PM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 3, 2014 4:05 PM Flag

    Dorris, you didn't have shares when it rose from $13.10 to $21.63?

  • Reply to

    Anemic Volume Today

    by j20tower Dec 3, 2014 2:33 PM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 3, 2014 3:14 PM Flag

    Dorris, stop. I am starting to feel sorry for you, and I did not think that possible.

  • Reply to

    Pumpers/Liars have a name for this

    by dorriswelch Dec 3, 2014 2:51 PM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 3, 2014 3:07 PM Flag

    Ron Burgundy, Legend that you are, go back to broadcasting. You are better at that.

  • Reply to

    Short covering.

    by ipburgundy Dec 3, 2014 9:57 AM
    raysfrom98 raysfrom98 Dec 3, 2014 2:36 PM Flag

    Nick, where are you getting that number?

31.16-0.340(-1.08%)Jan 30 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.