SeekingAlpha is the biggest joke around. A message board that any idiot can post an "article" on and try to collect pennies from ads displayed, so the bigger the story (regardless of how fictional it is), the more the sham author makes. Nobody would cite that as a remotely credible news source.
They say the product already failed in the market? SERIOUSLY? It hasn't even gone Beta yet. I know, because I'm on the Beta list.
What a stupid post/article/site (SeekingAlpha).
Seriously? That's your tactic? My complaint is that they are still lining up to give away shareholder value when they haven't gotten the core WORK done yet. I believe they should focus on the job at hand BEFORE sharing all the wealth. And by wealth, I mean shareholder investments that they will redistribute to others.
The NDA is all but complete? OMG, we've heard that FIVE times now and yet STILL they haven't filed it. There have been FIVE delays in filing this, next delay will be SIX. What will your excuse be then?
They have to FILE with the FDA before ANYthing can be considered. Something this management team has failed to do repeatedly. There has been good data for a long time now. Nobody on this board needs convincing of the efficacy of the drug. The effectiveness of management however is a whole different matter.
I'm going to trick myself into believing that they are giving themselves options while the share price is so low, so that when it explodes upward they benefit too. I'm going to keep telling myself that.
Understood, but they keep doing this (options for insiders) while NOT getting the FDA filing done.
I don't begrudge insiders getting options, EXCEPT when they aren't earning them. How many delays have we suffered through? For how many years now? Yet insider options keep on rolling, rolling, rolling ...
I would say that insiders options need to be blocked/stopped until they get the application filed with the FDA.
The thin part, I believe, is related to just 12 boys in the study. That is such a tiny sample size, it will always plague SRPT. I would argue that it is a minimally sufficient set, based on the relative percentage of the patient population - meaning, since few have the disease, few in the study can be acceptable.
Still, if the patient set were larger, the drug would already have been approved in my opinion. I think the drug works, but missteps by management have screwed up the approval process royally.
We can't go back in time and fix it (increase the # of patients in the trial) so we will have to make the best of it, but we also need to recognize it as yet another massive management blinder, and clean house, to improve prospects going forward.
I see in the headlines today more stock options for insiders, and noticbly missing is any meaningful progress on FDA filing. I wonder what excuse they will come up with this time for this next delay?
Please educate me because what I see is a stock that peaked on March 5 at $21.13/share and now sits at $12.75/share -- a loss of 40%.
My argument in my post was that there doesn't seem to be support at any level, and the 40% decline in RGLS supports that thesis. Further, my argument was that the manipulation of Biotech stocks was irrelevant of fundamentals, outlook, prospects, etc., and was not stock specific. So please, fill in the missing blanks that shows me there IS in fact support for stocks like RGLS, and maybe it is going up instead of 40% down.
I am open to learn, so have at it.