You are lucky to be anonymous -- otherwise REGN could identify you and sue your butt for libel.
Better be careful throwing around charges like this.
A certain percentage of elderly people will die every year but it ain't the Eylea that's killing them.
If you look at the MAHALO trial for dry AMD, the subset with the highest effcacy shared a common complement factor.
You can't just declare a subset of the patients or eyes that had the best outcomes. What about the other 300+ eyes.
No other company has reported data this loosely to my knowledge.
I am no short -- just an ophthalmic researcher. And I have looked at numerous studies.
If you declare a subset you have to announce the common characteristic of the group or it's not a subset.
I have studied DME trial data from Genentech, REGN, Allegro, Ozurdex (Allergan), and many others. Never have any of these referred to BMI. Never have seen data reported in this way before. This looks totally cherry picked.
Only AMPE seems to feel that BMI is an important criterion for efficacy.
This report seems suspiciously like cherry picking.
They reported on 106 of 359 patients in the trial.
I agree that success with a subgroup could be important but what common characteristics does this subgroup have?
Do they all have the same complement factor -- which can be key?
Need much more information.
So they found 106 people who did the best and that's who they reported on.
How many TOTAL people were in the study and why didn't they report overall numbers?
I think we need a fuller report on the data.
I think PVA management would most like to be "bolted on" to a bigger player and maybe operate as their shale team. Probably a long shot.
Otherwise, I think they will try to navigate through the down times as an independent -- which will not be good news to shareholders.
All or part of this can be used any time they decide to raise capital.
I think PVA management has the following mindset:
-- We have been in this business a long time
-- We have lived through the ups and downs
-- We can use our expertise to navigate through this down period and come out of it when oil prices rise.
-- We are smarter than the stockholders.
That's the impression I get.
I don't think they are seeing the situation clearly.
They gave it a good shot but you gotta know when to fold em.
Seems like selloff this am might be linked to the presentation Tuesday late.
I looked at the slides -- don't see anything new that would be a negative.
The IP numbers were accurate -- they came from PVA
The average IP was right where they put it at around 940-950.
You see any path to profitability? I don't.
Looks like they had no operational problems in Q1 -- but they have no way to make a profit.
Can't just continue like this or they will get 10 cents on the dollar for assets.
Someone has to force a sale -- PVA bonds are telling us things will only continue to deteriorate if company is not sold.
If ROSE could bite the bullet, so can PVA.
PVA has a somewhat similar situation as ROSE -- a billion in debt and good drilling prospects.
(maybe not as good as ROSE -- but still good)
ROSE did the honorable thing by accepting a decent offer for the company.
I think PVA should do the same before the situation gets dire.
I don't see a realistic path to profitability.
I've been a longtime supporter of PVA on this board.
Company management has been very responsive and candid, which I appreciate.
But isn't it time to forget about issuing the 100 million new shares and just take the best offer for the company?
This thing has played out long enough and the PVA share price is suffering for it.
If the company is actually up for sale, then do a deal.
It would be hard to believe that no one would put an offer on the table.
Any new 'strategies" from here on out would just be detrimental to the current shareholders.
If the management team can stay on with an acquirer because of their expertise as a shale operator, I would not begrudge them that.
As the song says, you gotta know when to fold em.