|
Post by beardawg on Feb 27, 2015 16:53:07 GMT -5
I believe he used a very small multiple like 2.8 or something on $3 billion in sales. His reasoning was that it should be the same as other biotechs. Of course he selectively chose ones to point out that fit his agenda - and even halved it from theirs. It's in the comments I believe. Ken used two established BIG PHARMAS, not biotechs as examples. Ken is a disingenuous putz. You're right. It threw me off because he used the term biotech when he talked about Lilly, Pfizer and Merck.
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Feb 27, 2015 16:57:09 GMT -5
IMHO when (not if) we hit $3B in sales this stock will be much higher than where it is today and it will be Ken who? However, I think we may seeing a change in the strategy of the short writers where they pose as longs and give a pro forma statement of support but then also offer up their opinions of their doubts and concerns which makes their opine seem more like balanced reporting. (No jab at Fox News intended) It makes them seem rationale and takes the edge off the bashing and often unsupportable claims of those like AF tend to make... Just my opinion...
|
|
|
Post by kball on Feb 27, 2015 19:36:12 GMT -5
I'm neutral on Ken's article but leaning towards admiration.
Seems to me he is bullish long term but pointing out the many obstacles new drugs, including Afrezza, have at 'the beginning' of their life cycle.
I have less interest in those that make a living predicting stock prices, and more respect for those that can give nuanced accurate guidance towards a companies prospects given their product(s) and the markets for these products....as well as the obstacles in the company's way.
I think he did a fairly good job in this regard. Plus i like his responding to the comments left
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Feb 27, 2015 19:52:49 GMT -5
I'm neutral on Ken's article but leaning towards admiration. Seems to me he is bullish long term but pointing out the many obstacles new drugs, including Afrezza, have at 'the beginning' of their life cycle. I have less interest in those that make a living predicting stock prices, and more respect for those that can give nuanced accurate guidance towards a companies prospects given their product(s) and the markets for these products....as well as the obstacles in the company's way. I think he did a fairly good job in this regard. Plus i like his responding to the comments left I would like to see it the same way but $3B?
|
|
|
Post by savzak on Feb 27, 2015 21:14:50 GMT -5
Whether he was covertly bashing or had a momentary brain cramp (and then another momentary brain cramp when he proof read), I cannot know. But I do know that the $3B comment is rank nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Chris-C on Feb 28, 2015 11:12:03 GMT -5
The biggest no-no on the question was that it was a leading question... ... This has nothing to do with what will happen in the real world. Doctors wouldn't even bring it up if they were worried about safety. They would simply wait. I don't think too many will be worried about safety after talking to Sanofi. I think he deliberately chose that form of question to get the results he wanted. bear, cub, dream, fugacity et al: I follow what folks are saying about the Kam article, but I really don't believe that it was intended as a hit piece. I hope I'm correct and not misled by yet another short shill. I think he attempted to do a quick and dirty informative piece on the fly and didn't think his own logic through carefully. He was just doing what most of the authors do there- trying to put together an article that was provocative enough to gain page clicks and using a terribly flawed (and essentially anecdotal) convenience sample to appear to legitimize his opinions. The trouble with Internet based investment articles is that most of them are geared to a gullible, uninformed readership too accustomed to getting their "informed analysis" on any subject in the shortest possible number of words or characters. Too many readers are happy to let someone else do their thinking and draw their conclusions for them--a poor man's version of AI. I agree that Savzak's analogy with fire building hit the nail on the head- the ingredients exist for unbelievable success, the big question concerns the timeframe. If the launch experiences a very slow start, the shorts will pile on and drive the share price down. Hopefully the company realizes the vast number of shares outstanding are a drag on share price until it is clear that sales will lead to blockbuster status. They should take an oath that no more shares will be issued until the sales drive the share price over $100. Regardless of one's thesis, this will be fun to watch, and some aspiring journalist out there should be gathering notes for what would be an outstanding story about a humanitarian minded entrepreneur who hit upon a technology that had the potential of creating new pathways to delivering medicines but had to overcome a corrupt FDA, a poorly regulated market and a huge group of shorts trading phantom shares -- and use his own personal fortune-- to get the drug to market. Chris_C
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 28, 2015 15:52:01 GMT -5
It seems more that he is trying to promote Nate Pile and Marketocracy rather than being a smear piece.
|
|
|
Post by kball on Feb 28, 2015 16:32:53 GMT -5
It seems more that he is trying to promote Nate Pile and Marketocracy rather than being a smear piece. Observed this as well. Guessing his pay for articles isnt nearly what his pay for mm is.
|
|