With all due respect, Debbie Burke did not say anything at all implying they are at risk of of going out of business. When an auditor, for example, cites the words 'going concern' it usually in the context of a company at the threshold of going out of business. If Debbie Burke uttered in any context those words, the stock would be under $1.00 immediately. So, I think I understand what you were trying to say, but referencing 'going concern' was not at all the proper characterization of EXELs condition at the present time. IMO of course.
"Going concern" as in a business no longer a going concern, like going out of of business? Can you clarify?
Good article for all you long holders of EXEL me included. Basically says what many here have been saying; (congratulations all you smart guys). that the delay in events and therefore the reporting of top line results is likely good news,. That CABO has already shown both in EXAM and COMET terrific PFS numbers compared to the comparator arm, and partnerships likely coming.. We have all said that. Stifels article took the winds out of the sails big time and with no news since its release, as a result EXEL has slowly drifted down, rudderless So hopefully this puts a floor on this drop, followed by ASCO, soon after....I'm more hopeful.
hey homeslice. Just curious.. Why do you care? You no longer have a short position. Are you that insecure that you need to see others fail? Did all these mean longs hurt your sensitive feelings? I ask it seriously cause I'd love to undertsand your motivation. Do you want to see me fail for example? Would that make you happy? i don't get it.
Hmmm. OK, a few things. First the trial is for Cabo, not Cobi. Second, the article never said that the toxicity is too high. What it said is, "Data in NSCLC supports cabozanitinib activity but at the cost of potentially excessive toxicity". They go on to say that it is their 'contention' that 60mg may be too high. Potentially too toxic and their contention its too toxic, is a lot different than it 'is' too toxic. Third, I'm not sure how you concluded from that article he is 'well informed on EXEL'. He may be, but nothing in that article tells me he is informed or not informed. Unless of course you are concluding he is 'informed' only because he posted an opinion. Fourth, what 'due date on May 29th' are you referring to? Hint: there is none. It was recently announced that the 'due date' as you call it will be end of Q2 (that's June in the Anglican calendar) or early Q3. So you are only off by 4-8 weeks. You previously called out your intention to sell EXEL so go if you need to justify that sale by posting here so you can re-read it to convince yourself, you can do that just as easily by creating a WORD document and re-reading that. You'll feel just as good. But it seems to me that you are wholly uninformed, and taking advice from someone you have no clue is informed or not. So good luck with that. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, so maybe it will work out for you..
Wow.. Had to look twice see who wrote this message. See, civility is possible. Man you know how to push them all buttons. Got everyone writing in upper case now too. And look at all those exclamation points you get! Congratulations, I thinks they dislike you. I assume that's why you are here. Did you take another position, $3.92 down to $3.10 and you weren't on board? Are you jumping on now? Would be interested to hear. I frankly don't believe you have the nuts to short again, and I meant that in a good way, not a mean spirited way.
Has anyone here actually validated/confirmed it was taken down? I still see other articles referncing Klein's piece, but I don't know if I ever saw the original. I'm guessing I'd have to be a client of Steifel to see their analyst coverage/articles, which I am not. So was simply wondering if in fact this is true or not.
Ok but ASCO hasn't even started, so curious to know exactly what expectations weren't me at the event that has yet to occur, and exactly whose expectations were not met? Yours? Would love to know the answers to those questions. Thank you and good luck..
Homeslice....seriously dude, as much as I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, you continue to disappoint, maybe hopeless, showing few redeeming qualities. I know you don't care, which is the whole point. very sad. I wish you luck.
Link below to a post today from AF. Not on EXEL but on KITE who's in the CAR-T business. Short story is Stifel writes apparently a balanced report on KITE. But it was apparently 'too balanced' for Stifel Investment Bankers who obviously have big position in Kite (or AF is implying) and the next day this guy posts basically an apology for sounding 'too negative on Kite'. Point is, you need to follow the money. The IB side of Stifel and other IB sides of these firms want to control, and do control, to a great extent what is said in these analysts reports. And it all depends on their positions. So the EXEL PPS approaches 4 and suddenly Stifel analyst is talking Cabo toxicity, days befor Option expiration as well. There was no apology from Stifel for being 'too negative' on EXEL the next day. Hmmm. Wonder why...
Cabozantinib (Cabo) in progressive medullary thyroid cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS:
We conducted a double-blind, phase III trial comparing cabo with placebo in 330 patients with documented radiographic progression of metastatic MTC. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to cabo (140 mg per day) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).
The estimated median PFS was 11.2 months for cabo versus 4.0 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.40; P less than .001). Prolonged PFS with cabo was observed across all subgroups including by age, prior TKI treatment, and RET mutation status (hereditary or sporadic). Response rate was 28% for cabo and 0% for placebo; responses were seen regardless of RET mutation status. Kaplan-Meier estimates of patients alive and progression-free at 1 year are 47.3% for cabo and 7.2% for placebo. Common cabo-associated adverse events included diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, decreased weight and appetite, nausea, and fatigue and resulted in dose reductions in 79% and holds in 65% of patients. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 16% of cabo-treated patients and in 8% of placebo-treated patients.
Cabo (140 mg per day) achieved a statistically significant improvement of PFS in patients with progressive metastatic MTC and represents an important new treatment option for patients with this rare disease. This Cabozantinib (Cabo) in progressive medullary thyroid cancer. This dose of cabo was associated with significant but manageable toxicity
Graduated from Yale, them got an MS at Georgetown, and then Doctorate at NY Medical Center. So he's educated. But makes me wonder about their editorial overview with regard to his grammar and more importantly his conclusions regarding toxicity. It never made sense to me how the sudden over concern of cabo toxicity. None of you downplayed it, in fact made the point it is toxic, but compared to what was never a consideration like Ernie pointed out and the fact its successfully already on the market as well. And finally, how do you raise those concerns and then re-iterate a Hold with a price target of $12? With all due respect to emansaru, when I pressed him on the science of why Meteor would fail, he said OS. Point is this guy could have said the same thing, and that fact that its Stifel, the market apparently would have listened just the same..in the same week of option expiration no less.. Very suspicious, amateurish.
Thank you Ernie.. This brings a lot of clarity to the issue, for me anyway. We're back to PFS it would appear....as it should be.
Don't know if I ever saw your comment regarding Steifel comment about Cabo's toxicity and its high probability to derail METEOR. What's you take? I'm sure many here would appreciate hearing you opinion. I know you all don't like talking in certainties, but perhaps after you comment, you can put a % on the 'toxicity' realities...Thanks,
I agree. Average analyst estimates say KITE earns $19.7M and earns $0.12/shr. I don't know from what or where. In any event, this will largely be ignored hit or miss IMO. At this early stage the market wants to know about Cash on hand, burn rate, and for how long they predict the current cash can fund operations. Then of course they listen closely for updates on trials, pipeline, etc. But I'm not telling anyone something they didn't know already..
With all due respect, I believe Wildbiftek was just trying to find the study that perhaps Stifel was basing, or partly basing their comments on. It's pretty clear to me Wildbiftek doesn't concur with those Steifel statements. But I'll let him tell you that.
All very confusing.. So why would EXEL dose at 60mg given the results from the phase 1 study above? I'm guessing its something along the lines of Oncodoc's comments below that, "these sort of toxicity assessments ahve no relation to either Meteor or the interesting data on single-agent Cabo in EGFR-WT NSCLC". In other words its because they are expecting different results because.....I'm just not sure how to finish that sentence. Different indications, singe agent, different cancer, different patient health, whatever (help me here). But it just defies logic that they'd use the same dose and expect a different result with all things being equal. Point is all things between these two studies are not equal (I'm guessing). So this is a someone who is ignorant in the science, admittedly, but I'd like to think a logical thinker. Just need you smart guys to tell me I'm wrong and why or better yet I'm right (in my naive/ignorant understanding way).