I agree that the future share price is largely dependent on RMTI's ability to sell Triferic. Nothing has changed on that front.
Calcitriol sales should be able able to generate positive cash flow to help offset SG&A expenses.
I agree with your post. When I ask a question about when mgmt. is finally going to get something launched, I usually get negative posts and a lot of thumbs down. Triferic was approved in Jan 2015...about 6 full quarters ago. There still have been no Triferic sales; yet, management has consistently received large bonuses on a regular basis since 1/2015. Maybe the pumpers are happy with that, but it just doesn't seem right. You get a bonus for results not by giving excuses to the shareholders.
I continue to follow the company and would consider buying the stock again if they get meaningful Triferic sales.
I'm not pulling "anyone's chain" . I would love to buy back into the stock and have followed it for almost 4 years now, at one time having a large position.
When are they going to show a profit and when are there going to be some Triferic sales?
Anyone out in the field that has some idea, please respond
I just don't understand why it takes so long to launch a generic drug (Calcitriol) and it seems like a long time for CMS to approve the add on pricing
Does anyone have an idea on what kind of loss RMTI will post for the current quarter ending 6/30/2016?
Does anyone know if Calcitriol got launched this quarter or is this a 3rd quarter launch?
How long does it normally take for a CMS decision?
It seems like this is taking a long time
They will probably get stock options regardless of the Calcitriol launch...by the way I believe that it has been over 2 years in trying to launch generic vitamin d
Calcitriol is not as important as selling Triferic. If RMTI does not get Triferic sales going soon, the stock price won't go up
I agree with your post. You should be paid for attained results. You should not be paid stock bonuses now before you have Triferic sales. Triferic revived FDA approval in Jan 2015 . Apprx 18 months later you still don't have any significant Triferic sales; yet, mgmt. has received quarterly stock compensation. The pumpers will say that mgmt. deserves the bonus while the bears will say that the compensation was not deserved. For the stock to go meaningfully higher, you need profitable Triferic sales
The future of this company is tied to Triferic profitability. Triferic has been touted as a "game changing" drug. You would think that 5 months is long enough for a decision to be made but perhaps there are more questions that have to be addressed by RMTI. In any event, you will not see new all time highs until this is approved, barring a buyout
The stock actual got up to about $18.90 last year before it had a big dip
I agree. The market won't price it in until it happens and then you should see Dialysis companies sign Triferic sales contracts.At the shareholder meeting, Rob was cautious about stating an expected date and I think that is smart sense the lawyers are listening and are always trying to bring frivolous lawsuits
I found it interesting that the incentive plan got knocked down . Over all, Rob pretty positive on getting Calcitriol launched in the 3rd quarter. Anyone else that attended, post what you saw in Rob's demeanor. I thought he did a pretty good job
A little over a week after Taiwan’s Economic Daily News gave a rosy forecast for iPhone 7 production orders, investment bank Robert W. Baird & Co. went in the other direction, saying initial production orders for the iPhone 7 are looking worse than for the disappointing iPhone 6S.
Baird analyst William Power said his firm’s semiconductor team recently completed its quarterly Asia supply chain checks. On the positive side, those checks revealed no further iPhone procurement cuts since March and indicated that the low-cost iPhone SE is performing “modestly ahead of expectations.”
But on the negative side, feedback from the supply chain indicated that initial iPhone 7 procurement is slightly below the iPhone 6S and below consensus estimates.
“Though some concerns are likely priced in (to Apple (AAPL) stock), with a downward bias to consensus estimates, we remain cautious near-term, particularly following the recent bounce,” Power said in a research report Wednesday.
Power sees the initial iPhone 7 procurement at 90 million to 110 million units, which would be “down modestly” year over year vs. the iPhone 6S. He cautioned that the procurement figure for now is just an estimate and has not been finalized.
“The semiconductor team procurement checks seem to support our year-over-year iPhone unit growth concern,” Power said. “We continue to believe that consensus iPhone forecasts could be too high for fiscal 2017.”