|
Post by Clement on Apr 10, 2018 7:08:05 GMT -5
Re: timing of the capital raise
Suppose MC is sitting on an international deal which he can announce in a couple of weeks. However, the upfront payment is small compared to cash needs. He has to decide: Announce first the international deal with small upfront, and soon after that the capital raise. (seems like bad news then more bad news) -or- First complete and announce the capital raise, and then announce the international deal. (seems like bad news then good news)
What would you do?
|
|
|
Post by digger on Apr 10, 2018 8:47:46 GMT -5
Re: timing of the capital raise Suppose MC is sitting on an international deal which he can announce in a couple of weeks. However, the upfront payment is small compared to cash needs. He has to decide: Announce first the international deal with small upfront, and soon after that the capital raise. (seems like bad news then more bad news) -or- First complete and announce the capital raise, and then announce the international deal. (seems like bad news then good news) What would you do? How did a small international deal go from being good news in your first scenario to bad in your second. To me, both sound like bad news compounded by bad news. Either way, I think he should have waited until after the Wainwright conference. Doing it before doused any possibility of a price kick from the presentation and made it look like the company was really hurting for money.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 10, 2018 12:09:05 GMT -5
Lower rate of hypoglycemia was statistically significant. It was rate of severe hypoglycemia that was lower though due to number of subjects and infrequency in both arms of severe hypoglycemia it did not reach the traditional probability cutoff for "significance". Personally it would seem reasonable to assume that if overall hypoglycemic events are lower, the incidence of severe ones would be also. Especially when the data itself indicates a 90% probability of that being true... just not the 95% level required to be statistically significant. Though detractors would simply say it didn't hit the target... though I'd be really interested if a detractor could come up with a plausible physiological mechanism by which hypoglycemia overall would be reduced but with no reduction in severe hypoglycemia.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Apr 10, 2018 12:48:03 GMT -5
Lower rate of hypoglycemia was statistically significant. It was rate of severe hypoglycemia that was lower though due to number of subjects and infrequency in both arms of severe hypoglycemia it did not reach the traditional probability cutoff for "significance". Personally it would seem reasonable to assume that if overall hypoglycemic events are lower, the incidence of severe ones would be also. Especially when the data itself indicates a 90% probability of that being true... just not the 95% level required to be statistically significant. Though detractors would simply say it didn't hit the target... though I'd be really interested if a detractor could come up with a plausible physiological mechanism by which hypoglycemia overall would be reduced but with no reduction in severe hypoglycemia. I would agree. I think it can be sold. There will be push back from the less receptive. If it could reach statistical significance in both cases that would vastly simplify the approval in the UK since NICE weights heavily for lower hypoglycemia (it impacts the quality of life value)
|
|