Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Off-Topic....
(I did NOT select Celsion as a pick, because rules forbid trading in the pick within 72 hours after publication. With the interim results coming up, I WILL NOT take that chance... lol)
Full Disclosure - I'm in this contest where the prize is a gig writing a column for MarketWatch. I mentioned VHC and ARQL as good investments over the next year - column length and medium prevented too much of an in-depth look. If anyone feels like "liking" the article I'd appreciate it - be nice to win both the column and the readers' pick!
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/great-columnist/2011/11/07/dont-settle-for-average/
-Trond
MarketWatch mention
Disclosure - I'm in this contest where the prize is a gig writing a column for MarketWatch. I mentioned ARQL (and VHC) as a good investment over the next year - column length and medium prevented too much of an in-depth look. If anyone feels like "liking" the article I'd appreciate it - be nice to win both the column and the readers' pick!
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/great-columnist/2011/11/07/dont-settle-for-average/
-Trond
Wouldn't think results would necessarily BE next week; I think BY next week. They will want results public by their presentation or there will be no Q&A - everything will be "can't comment."
7 people is half the company (and let's be honest - probably the more important half)! They wouldn't leave a skeleton crew at HQ if they were waiting for word from DMC or FDA.
Rumors (also from Nate August) was that DMC meets this week. Also have heard they will PR the results within 72 (calendar) hours. So unless the meeting is late Friday, we should hear results BY Fri afternoon...
TastyGreenWafers....
Thanks for the message. Wish "low" were defined better, lol.
-Trond
Rumor has it that the DMC meets next week - so people are buying in for the interim results.
Guess I'll reply to all three of these posts in one.
>> (original post) - no real question, just admitting there's a lot of confusion out there.
My synthesis is: They are under an SPA with an interim look. Therefore they definitely have at least one outcome "carved in stone" that would be called "success" and allow an early filing.
Here's the key though... there are numerous other outcomes that they can do different things with. Let's say PFS is marginally short of stat sig (the higher bar at interim) BUT Overall Survival (OS) comes in with some crazy number like 60 in placebo and 8 in treatment arm. [I am NOT saying that is even close to happening!!!] Would you roll the dice and file for early approval?
The thing most don't understand is that the company really can do anything they want. They can file early, or not, regardless of whether success is at interim or not. But the costs and bad PR truly do make it a fairly easy call, most of the time. DNDN filed in 2006 for approval of Provenge even though 1 of the two trials was not stat sig and the second was very small numbers. They almost made it too, the AC voted majority for approval. But the FDA said no, and so they had to wait on IMPACT trial data to get the okay.
Specifically to Mangrove, Celsion is totally passing the buck. Yes, if they changed the trial it would break the SPA, but they can always ask the FDA to amend the SPA (again, refer to Dendreon for an example of successfully changing the SPA in IMPACT and getting a success at the "faster" final because of it). Once amended by the FDA, it is a valid SPA. So yes, they absolutely could go that route, and you should note that asking for that doesn't kill the original SPA.
Finally, it isn't CLSN's call with the data unless it is a success at interim. The DMC could rec a continue and not tell them a durn thing. HOWEVER, they easily could rec a continue but also release anything from a little extra data to full disclosure of hazard ratios, and numbers between arms for PFS and OS.
Once that occurs, as much as shareholders scream, the company does not HAVE to release any of that info (arguably, if bad, they would have to, but why would the continue be recced, in that case?).
>>TGF: re more money
I'm not convinced the raise would be at depressed prices, for very long. By halfway through 2012, I'd expect $6-10, or more. How? Simply virtue of being past an interim, in a major trial (HEAT is the biggest HCC trial ever, from one source), in a major indication with no good alternatives if transplant/surgery is not suggested, that has an SPA and Fast Track and called a Priority Trial by the NIH (one of only 8 such trials) and registrational in 5 different countries. The market should award a market cap of approx. $400-650M to such a company - and even if 4-7M shares are offered before then, that is about 31-33M shares out and we could see the teens in SP.
There'll be a flood of news, even if no early filing, we have accelerated approval and that means they'll start with the rolling NDA after they get some data at interim. China should finish enrolling (HEAT) by the end of Jan. The MLC trial (ph2) starts enrolling in Q4. We'll find out more info on Dignity (ph2) and HIFU (ph2) in the this Q or Q1. "Product #5" details should be released in the next half year as well. Yakult will also use the DMC interim data to design a better Phase 3 for Japan, and they pay all trial costs there.
I think we have enough cash to see us through end of 2Q12, and by that time we should either license or be able to raise more cash ourselves at a pretty good price.
I'm not worried, at all.
Regards,
Trond
I'm not sure!
Part of me says that because PFS allows accelerated approval, they almost certainly would not "stop" the trial now because they need the overall survival data to cement approval.
Let's say they succeed - it wouldn't really stop, but everyone would still be followed for OS. I guess they could censor all OS at the next patient who recurs locally -- from that point on all would be eligible for TDox + RFA. I suspect with another years' maturation the numbers we have now would still show the trend needed for OS.
The other alternative would be keeping the arms intact - not horrible, because the placebo DOES get RFA which does work.
Keep in mind, 5-8 months filing for the NDA and 6 months review means that approval still wouldn't occur until late 2012.
>>Would like to see it stabilize above $3 before the next leg up.
IMO we won't really have time for stabilization. I expect (DMC) news by next week.
I've asked around a bit. LTFU is a concern here, as in any trial. I'd think that placebo has a greater issue with that than the treatment arm, because it IS a chemo treatment and side effects should be obvious to docs. The doc would know, but fortunately RFA only still works well for at least 5-9 months, so we'll have that much history before censoring for LTFUs.
I mentioned this on IV, but if the initial ablation fails, they still will have burned quite a bit away, so the second try would be on a much smaller tumor, and thus have a greater chance of success.
Regards,
Trond
Mangrove - Sumzero.com???
YMB had a series of posts that is a bombshell IF TRUE.
There was a post that was allegedly copied from a site called www.sumzero.com. This evidently is where asset managers can swap investment ideas. Supposedly Mangrove, which just filed (showing a 6, and then 8, percent holding of Celsion) posted this writeup.
I'm trying to find out if the above is correct.... Anyone here know of the site?
-Trond
-----
We filed last month with approximately 8% ownership of Celsion (NASDAQ: CLSN). The detailed commentary in our filing was prompted by a conference call we held at the request of the company’s management to discuss our statistical modeling of their ongoing clinical trial in Thermodox (the HEAT trial) and several recommendations we made as a result of our statistics work. So that you have no confusion after reading our filing, while we wrote in our filing that we “acknowledged” management’s view that the trial was unlikely to stop for efficacy at the upcoming interim look, our analysis strongly suggests that the trial will show overwhelmingly positive results. Indeed, if the existing Special Protocol Assessment between Celsion and the Food and Drug Administration is structured as we would expect, it is our strong belief that the trial will stop for efficacy.
While Celsion represents among the best opportunities in terms of expected value that I have seen in recent years, the value of the company hinges on a binary event: the outcome of the ongoing HEAT trial. To be clear, there is substantial downside should the trial be unsuccessful. Thermodox is a reformulation of the already approved cancer drug Doxorubicin such that it is encapsulated in a lipid barrier that breaks apart in the presence of heat a few degrees above body temperature. From a treatment standpoint, Thermodox is a very logical improvement of Doxorubicin, because it allows for a more targeted approach to treating patients with what is otherwise an extremely toxic drug. From an approvability standpoint, the prior approval of Doxorubicin should ease the process for Celsion. In short, we believe that the probability of a successful trial is high.
The HEAT trial is a test of Thermodox in conjunction with radiofrequency ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Our confidence in the trial outcome is predicated on our biostatistics work, which suggests an overall median time of progression free survival across the entire trial of approximately 30 months, as shown in the 99.9% confidence intervals for median time of PFS across the entire trial in the table below:
< see attachment>
In deconstructing the trial’s performance between the treatment and control arms, we believe that it will be possible for the trial to achieve statistical significance at a p-value of = 0.001 at the interim look based upon a modeled median time to progression free survival in the control arm of up to 18-months. Commentary from Celsion suggests that the 190th event, which triggers the interim look, has already occurred and that the Data Monitoring Committee is now reviewing the trial results. In short, an announcement is likely in the next two months. To put an 18-month median of progression free survival in perspective, the Company has estimated that the control group should have a median time to progression free survival of 12 months and our literature reviews and checks with doctors have suggested similar, if slightly higher, times for progression free survival. As a result of what appears to be a meaningful separation between treatment and control arms that we have modeled, we see a high chance of the HEAT trial stopping for efficacy at the interim look and only a small chance that the trial will stop for futility.
As with several of our other statistically-focused investments, we modeled Celsion by reconstructing the enrollment data for the trial based on public information, sensitizing the date for the timing of the interim look and the estimated time for progression free survival for the control arm, and running monte carlo simulations based on exponential curves for each arm of the trial. Below is a table that shows the modeled number of months of progression free survival as well as the range of progression free survival for the treatment arm based upon 99.9% confidence intervals at a 70% recurrence rate:
< see attachment>
Having probabilities on your side when investing is only one part of investing with strong positive expected values – the second is your set of valuations under various scenarios. We believe that the most likely scenario, a halt of the trial for efficacy, results in an expected value of about $10 per share based on our view that Thermodox should be able to sell at least $150 million into the RFA market for HCC in the United States and Europe. We think there is a 60% probability of this. If the trial continues onto the final endpoint, we see the stock fairly valued based on the offsetting factors of a high likelihood of ultimate approval on the one hand and the time and expense of continuing the trial on the other hand. We place a 35% chance on this outcome. In the case of stopping the trial for futility, we see the stock trading to $1.00 or approximately the cash per share that is currently on hand. We place a 5% probability on this outcome. Our expected value is therefore roughly $7 per share or about 170% above the current market price.
Variant View
Our view differs from consensus in that we have generated highly sensitive confidence intervals for the upcoming interim look. Specifically, we have used a Metropolis Hastings Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm for modeling using derived distribution of lambda given data without differentiating between 2 different groups to generate confidence intervals for the upcoming interim look. While several other parties have tried to calculate the median time of PFS in the trial, they have been unable to determine whether or not this will result in a statistically significant result given the high threshold for efficacy that needs to be met for an interim stop. Our analysis / modeling overcomes this barrier.
I did buy some Oct calls, but those were back when the company had said the results would be by end of Sept. They are in doubt now, and I think too risky. I'd rather pay the extra premium and go Nov or Jan.
But the shares theselves are still so cheap that they present the best value, IMO.
You are correct, selling calls here is a fools game except if you have no desire to see whther HEAT works or not - if you simply buy CLSN now and sell the Oct $2.50s you'd make a "freaking awesome" return annualized.
I would say that in the event of an interim success (yes, still unlikely, but I peg it at about a 20-30% chance), selling calls at whatever bumped price we see would be a good strategy. In other words, if we bumped to $17, selling Jan $20s would be a good play. Or, selling DITM calls at $10, and expecting a pullback, buying them back later.
>>i thought they werent't going to pr the 190 data
They are not PRing when the 190th event occured. They will be PRing the actual 190th data (interim results).
I posted a reply to the ymb on why I think we'll get interim results very soon:
----
>>Why people think they're releasing some sort of information in October is beyond me.
They have consistently said that the 190 would closely match up with the enrollment of 600. They also went on record in June/July with "end of Sept. for results". Then in late July/Aug they went to "190th in Q3 and results in Q4".
Since they announced the 600 on 8/3 (and a slide from R&R showed the enrollment finished in "late July"), there is one piece of it. 190 had to trending to finish by 8/10 or so, since we know it would take 6-8 weeks for DMC review, and they had said end of Sept. Throw in objective radiological reviews and we know why they slightly overstepped that guidance, since corrected.
It is my belief that the review (compiling the info) is now underway and Odaat's prediction of 10/11-14 for the actual DMC meeting is pretty doggone close. It may be tomorrow or it may be a week or two past that... but we'll see results in Oct.
At R&R, MT said unlikely with both futility and success at interim, I think that kickstarted the downdraft. Plus, there were an awful lot of people who don't follow it too closely, and last they;d heard the interim results were expected by end of Sept. So now that it's kicked back to Q4 and they won't even confirm the 190th has been hit ... I think those investors are simply tired of waiting and want to put their money somewhere hot until it gets closer.
That is one reason I'm livid about them not even confirming 190... they are not being too transparent right now and in biotech you need to be able to trust mgmt. I'm fine with waiting a little while longer, but after all the enrollment estimates they missed, you'd think they could be a little tighter on the timeframes now.
Rolling NDA means they can submit the various components of the NDA (preclinical, CMC, clinical) separately, and some of it early. Normally the whole shebang has to be filed as one piece, but Fast Track allows piecing it out.
So really, whether or not the interim is successful or simply continues the trial, they will file the NDA on a rolling basis.
The Fast Track means the PDUFA date is six months from filing. Note that, 1) the FDA doesn't get penalized if they are late and 2) even if interim is overwhelmingly successful, it will take them about 4-8 months to put the whole NDA together and file. So best case is if we find success at interim in Oct, we'd file by March or so, and get a PDUFA date of approx Sept 2012. And that timeline is so fast I would put it at less than 5% of happening if interim is great.
Two other things complicate this somewhat.
If we do not get a halt due to overwhelming efficacy, standard language for DMC's is to simply state the recommendation for continuing to final. In other words, we may not get ANY other info. Net, this is still positive, but may cause a temporary letdown in the stock. (more news should follow, i.e. Dignity and CRLM trials, and the ever-possible license agreement, plus product #4, etc... so the stock would remain quite volatile)
Based on the language change from "reach 190" to "confirm 190" I am operating under the assumption that we hit it a while ago. The issue? Events involving tumors need a radiologic review that could take from 1 to FOUR freaking months to confirm. I suspect they will not dally around with these, but they are not on the investors' timetable, unfortunately. Guidance was for 600 and 190 to occur "around the same time" so I really do feel comfortable saying they have already hit, probably back in early-to-mid August. In that case? Say 1-2 months for review and the ol' 6-8 weeks for the interim calc. That'd be around November 11. (I really hope its earlier!!!)
Then - we also have to think that if they do take a while to confirm the last couple events, by the time they have done so, there may well be around 200 events that are all confirmed. So - the interim calc might be performed with MORE THAN the 190 events.
Regards,
Trond
Jan strikes should be great for playing this. Keep in mind two things:
You'll be paying extra premium (over Oct, e.g.)
There should be a great runup - take your basis off the table during the runup because if the interim is not an "approvable - stop the trial" result (I'm still only giving this a 15-25% chance) then the share price could well drop again for awhile.
I think such a drop would be temporary, as we'll see the CRLM & Dignity(ph2) trials yield enrollment news soon as well as rumors about a partnership spiking us here and there. Also, the above means there's about a 80% chance (IMO) that we do NOT get an approvable interim result. Those are not betting odds unless you've taken your basis off the table and are playing with house money!!
Regards,
Trond
>>gets us to $2,75B....thus $100...second fiscal yr after mkt launch.........
Agree on the higher than 12.5% of market share - closer to 37.5%, really near your 40%.
But please do not project a second year post-launch of 2.7B - that just will not happen. First, you have to realize that US is NOT the largets PLC market... Asia is, and the filings for approval there won't happen before we get FDA clearance. It will be 2013 before we get more than 2 or 3 approvals in Asia, and that is assuming we get approved here on interim results.
Don't want to rain on parades, but also don't want too much hyping.
Regards,
Trond
>>how much of a move you expect after data is released in Sept?
Please note in the last filing (from the Q2 cc) they (again!) moved out the expected timing of the interim results.
They now say the 190th should be hit in Q3 but results will not be known until Q4. AND they have a caveat saying even the Q3 is only a projection.
It seems likely that they have actually got the 190th already but they are waiting on an objective radiologic review panel to confirm them, hence the references in the last couple PRs to "confirmed events". Informed Yahoo posters seem to think it could be a 2-4 month delay in between the event and independant confirmation. Personally, I think we'll get the PR within a couple weeks, kicking off the 6-8 week countdown for the interim results.
Regards,
Trond
There are only two looks - the interim and the final.
Keep in mind the DMB can stop the trial at any time for futility (but with all the safety reviews-to-date, this should NOT be an issue in HEAT).
The interim occurs after enrollment of 600 and 190 PFS events. Couple minor point to keep in mind - they can continue to enroll past 600 to make up registrational trials in Japan (currently at 18, need 60). I believe but do not know that other Asian countries could continue to enroll in like fashion.
Those two events should occur, per the company, within 2-3 weeks. The interim calculation includes collecting all data from all trial sites, verifying that data, and then unblinding the data so they can get statistical info across the arms. This whole process takes from 6-8 weeks. They have already guided for (and reiterated) results by the end of September, so about 9 weeks to go in total.
The DMC can either recommend stopping for futility, for filing for early approval, or a continue to the final look.
Futility should be an extraordinarilly low probability.
Early approval filing is also low. May be as high as 25% or so, but it's still a lottery ticket for now.
Rec to continue is the most likely prospect.
In that case, company guidance for the 380 (in the 12/1/10) CEO letter on the website) is "At the current enrollment, we are likely to see enough events (380) for study read out in the next 14-16 months." KEEP IN MIND that enrollment has lagged severely, so that 14-16 months will probably be extended. If it was 2/12 - 4/12 before, I'd not be surprised to see it be 7/12 to 11/12 before we get the 380.
We will get much greater clarity after the interim calc.
Sounds great, but keep in mind the interim valuation is $7.16.
I'm a bull here, and think we'll hit $5-9 during the runup through Sept, but $18 just on the runup before interim release is probably not going to happen.
Regards,
Trond
Don't forget that Dr. Seymour has indicated they want to move to the AMEX. That would require a stock price in the $2s and $3s. So the "overwhelming" amount of data they intend to release between now and the IND submittal should be enough to get and keep us there.
I'm thinking the following things are keeping us back:
lack of exchange trading
lack of share price
lack of human trials
These all combine to make 'tutes and funds nervous - they cannot estimate any kind of ETA on trial results, nor can they be sure of an exit door. Thus, the better part of valor is simply waiting. They won't mind paying $4 a share if we ease their worries - capital preservation and being "right" with the crowd is more important than getting one miniscule (to them) victory.
My impression is they won't compete.
We battle viruses, they battle tumors. They can't exactly inject their thingies into the general bloodstream to hit dengue or rabies... lol.
>> I follow NNVC also and like their tech.......they are YEARS away from bringing it before the FDA ........
I have some there too. While yes, they are much earlier (still preclinical) keep in mind they are not addressing oncology.
When they do finally get their INDs filed, the individual trials will only take weeks to months to enroll and get data.
I view the first IND filing to be on huge inportance there. And they said they should have a pre-IND meeting in June. I have a recent email from Dr. Seymour where he said they would be failing that timeline by a bit, but they wanted to "overwhelm the FDA with data". I take that to mean over the next 1-3 months they will be publishing a bunch more data, moving the stock.
Sorry to be off-topic on the Celsion board.
-Trond
This new technology is not in direct competition at all with Thermodox. It may compete with RFA, though!
The important part of Tdox is NOT the heat - heat only activates it - breaking down the "soccer balls" and allowing the doxorubicin to escape.
Also, RFA itself is a great intervention. But keep in mind what Tdox does - it bathes the areas, where ablation doesn't "quite" reach the effective temperature, with the chemo agent and kills off those tumor cells that aren't done in by the heat. There's also some evidence that the dox then kills off the micromets that would later cause metasteses elsewhere in the body. This new tech won't have that benefit.
This may interfere with RFA, but not with Tdox.
Regards,
Trond
An email from ES, from June 8th. I had asked him about the most recent guidance for a pre-IND meeting by June:
Regards,
Trond
--------
Dear Trond,
Nice to hear from you.
Watch for upcoming info
We have to make certain that this filing is perfect so if it takes a little longer to file than we anticipated, it will save us time in the long run. All novel technologies are given extra scrutiny.
We want to overwhelm them with data
>>That's the thing, they shouldn't be low in cash, we covered this last time they diluted a few weeks ago, that they should've had enough cash for another 8 or 9 months. There was a thread on the yahoo board, check it out.
It may have been covered on the YMB, but I don't agree with the analysis. I think they only had cash through about Sep/Oct. So unless they got a license immediately from the interim results, they'd be scraping the barrel again and the partner could play hardball.
Now they have cash on hand for an extra 3-5 months. Less need, more options. Also, if they don't enroll/hit 190 PFS for another 3-5 weeks, I could see the SP slump under $3 again. They get cash in hand with this deal.
>>What could be the reasons that they would suddenly need more cash? Good or bad
They said in the PR the proceeds could go "for general corporate purposes, including the funding of the clinical development of its product pipeline of cancer drugs."
I believe they are using this to get the liver mets trial going the absolute second that HEAT finishes enrolling. Possibly the RCW ph2 trial also.
Yahoo board has a good string on the ASM, I was listening and posting as I could.
Hi all,
I don't post much here - active on IV and a little on Yahoo. My blog post on CLSN got some attention a month or so ago. Amusingly, I also posted on IV this moring that we'd probably see about 550,000 volume today and we traded 550,081!! VERY long and strong on Celsion and have been in for the last 10 months, buying all the way down to $2.04 and now back up to $3.
There was a very interesting post on Yahoo tonight, pondering the Japan halt. The theory is that the treatment paradigm in Japan is RFA-only as prescribed only for tumors 3 cm or less - otherwise they use RFA + TACE. So with HEAT's criteria for tumors being 3 cm to 7 cm, we really don't have many eligible patients. THAT may be the reason enrollment is so slow and the PMDA is resisting letting enrollment continue.
Not really an answer here, if this is correct. Just wanted that theory to get some additional attention.
Regards,
Trond
BioSpecialist - thanks for linking to my blog. Been a Celsion shareholder for about nine months now and while annoyed about the continual pushback on enrollment, we are now at the point of no return... even minimal enrollment means we'll hit 600 by end of July.
The more eyeballs on Celsion now, the better - we should see a runup to a double or more within 1-10 weeks.
Regards,
Trond
iwfal,
Trond>>
I still find it curious how anyone can make the case that this particular drug has marginal efficacy?
iwfal>>
Because I think you'd be hard pressed to find many onc drug with an HR>0.75 that made more than $1B/Yr in any given single indication...
I asked about this particular drug and you go off to "many onc drugs". I wasn't asking about revenue estimates.
Based on IMPACT data and looking at prior trial data, my question still stands: how can you make the case that this particular drug has marginal efficacy?
Regards,
Trond
Jesse,
Believe me, I know what you mean about brevity and posts, I shoot from the hip much too often myself. Thanks for the reply.
Yes, Medicare reimbursement will be central to success. But I take it as a tenet of faith that at least through 2014, it will be business as usual. So with approval, Medicare should be paying for Provenge, without a whimper.
And why not? I'll throw this out: with the label they have they can administer this before Taxotere. With the relative cost between the two at ~$60K for Tax and ~$93K for Provenge, it seems to me with the benign side effect profile and possible long term delay of any kind of chemo that most doctors and patients will elect Provenge.
By the time the PPA really comes into force and they start looking at cost/benefit, I think Provenge will have proven its own. If we disagree there, then we'll have to disagree.
Regards,
Trond
>>I suspect he is making reference to the fact that 50% or more of drugs approved in onc with survival data have survival HR<0.75.
It very well could be what he was referring to.
But "marginal" was a pejorative directly specific to Provenge's effect. If a statement along the lines of "Provenge's clinical effect in terms of HR was in the 40th percentile of all cancer drugs" then it'd be fine.
I'd prefer to keep the conversation to the specific indication - and since the latest conference call made the statement that no prior prostate cancer drug had made the leap of median survivial to over two years, and IMPACT came in at 25.8 months, I still find it curious how anyone can make the case that this particular drug has marginal efficacy?
Finally, please keep in mind the true nature of these trials - placebo was not truly placebo but Provenge vs. SOC + "Frovenge". I have NO clue why they set it up that way but Provenge was competing against a weakened version of itself. Even if it added a month to the median survival of the placebo arm, it affected the HR that much more.
Glad to see your extra notes re: low tox profile and prostate cancer trial issues.
Regards,
Trond
>>I have been aware of this company for several years...
>>Provenge clinical effect is fairly marginal...
In the several years you've "been aware" of the company, have you actually looked at the data?
Clinical results across multiple trials including THREE Phase III all happen to show pretty much the same effect. The FDA granted an SPA to the IMPACT trial and it met it's criteria. And now they approved it.
So.... where exactly do you see only a "marginal" effect?
Regards,
Trond
[excuse the snotty tone, please; I really am curious]
My first ever I-Hub post. Appropriate it's on this board.
Sent an email to IR congratulating them. I will probably not be following too much more of this today, as I unfortunaetly actually have a day job. Thought about calling in sick, but the internet connection is better here.
Life is good, today. Congrats to all longs.
Regards,
Trond