Ggwpq thanks for all the input. The GI bill makes the opportunity cost significantly less for me relative to most students, but if I can’t get into my target schools (HBS, CBS, Booth), then I don’t think I’ll be able to make the leap into finance. Did your b-school experience inspire you to strike out on your own or was it something you’ve always wanted?

For Cal, a buddy of mine did Fuqua online - seemed rigorous to me, though I thought it was a poor move for reasons both you and ggwpq mentioned: he was burning his GI Bill while still in uniform, and online programs don’t help build the network you need for career leaps.

Who knows though, maybe I’ll just go start a custom bike shop with jf

Good thought I might try to pick up a class or two later this year.

Small/mid-cap bio has been the focal point of my investments for the last 12ish years, so I don’t think I’ll spend cash for a course on industry fundamentals. Reading this board for the last four years has certainly been an education of its own.

Financial modeling is where my skills are weak and could use a kickstart, but this just isn’t a good time. Right now I’m 100% focused on killing the GMAT with the goal of attending a top 10 program.

Getting out of the Army requires a lot of focus; I think of it as trying to achieve ‘escape velocity’. There are many mechanisms that Human Resources Command can employ to retain critical personnel (right now, pilots), so when your window to give your 12 months notice opens, you gotta be ready.

No worries I’m still learning this stuff... regrettably I never took any finance/business classes in “college”. Once scripts light off I think P/E will be a more suitable metric, but DCF is interesting since it’s probably the first tool a potential acquirer would apply.

Thanks for reposting that! I’ve been looking for that post for a while. However, I disagree with your comment about applying a PE multiplier.

DCF captures a theoretical current EV so it seems inappropriate to apply a multiplier.

To say it another way, earnings multipliers are premiums in anticipation of future cash flows, but HDG’s DCF model already captured them (presumably to 2030). It’s double counting.

... you do realize you posted about lasagna recipes yesterday, right?

Agree the change back to Jan 20 supports the notion that there was an earlier internal deadline. That’s what I was trying to say in my post but I got it twisted... too many late nights at the office lately.

Disregard I was tired when I wrote that and didn’t stop to think.

For HDG: Slide 3 of the April investor presentation states that the company is assuming a standard 10-month review with PDUFA in late Jan ‘20.

Guess I’ll put away my tinfoil hat for now

Management likely sold shares because of taxes, personal finance plans, or because the risk profile of parking 96% (hypothetical) of their net worth in a single high-risk asset wasn’t palatable to them.

Do you believe that their decision to sell (or buy) is indicative of the future revenues and growth of the company?

Management likely sold shares because of taxes,

Not unreasonable. I’m confident LBL is exactly who he says he is, but like you I would like to know what facts or assumptions he fed into the model.

I’ve learned a metric sh!tload on this forum in the last four years, and I’d like to learn more.

Hell yea brother. Hit me up offline when you have dates, hopefully I’ll be in town

I interpret that as 200k snda and 5M total RI data.

Lol gotta count our blessings.

Between the possible future indications, reformulations/combos, acquisitions, supply chain efficiencies I think the future holds tremendous uncertainties... especially re: whether AMRN really caves to generic competition.

Ten years is a long time sharpen an ax, but honestly it’s more like 15; what do people think JT was doing in the doldrums of 2014-2018? I’m certain they wargamed 2030 ad nauseam and have a strategy to remain competitive beyond that date.

I lol’ed. Gonna have to send to some buddies...that already came closer to being a reality than the public realizes. I doubt I ever would have seen RI topline...

Haha congrats Kev, good to know the limits of your luck

Yea just play money. What a spectacular dud of a trial.

News out. Get ready to bleed.

Totally agree JL, just poking some fun at the thought of giving the company to BP for nickels or recruiting a ton of sales reps for a product that will become ubiquitous.

Management is killing it and yet some here are talking about BP throwing them 50 bucks like a lifesaver for the drowning.

The only thing I anticipate might stop us from GIA is a hostile takeover bid. That failing, I think Thero & Co are ready to lead us to 10B+ revenue in a few years

You would sell the company for 20b?

Why not just dilute another 100m shares and use that 1.5b to buy the worlds largest pharma rep army? According to Dan and Cal’s #’s that should afford 3000 more reps for two years. Reps wouldn’t even have to call at clinics - they could just picket outside, lay in the roads, and hold Vascepa rally/protests until the doctors surrender. We don’t need to convince doctors with science and data, we just need a giant machine that will instill fear in their hearts and break their will to resist.

Grand Marshall Tasty shall lead them to glory.

Lbl,

Would you be willing to share your models? I’ll give you my email if you don’t want to post it.

Check out page 8 right above the start of conclusions where they say they’ll follow up for up to 2 years.

https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(18)31337-5/pdf

Titan

Re the 2021 update... I agree with Kiwi it’s a study follow-up for more data points. Patency-1 also had a two year follow up which should dredge up some interesting data towards the end of this year (two years after Patency-1 unblinding 2017).

I don’t read anything into it regarding trial success/failure. Patency-1 failed and yet they indicated in the published study they still intend to follow-up.

Expect data this week still.

And yes AMRN is a monster... if BP *tries*
to buy now it’s gonna cost them dearly (triple digits)

Thanks very helpful

Interesting. Bodes well.

New to CKD so thanks for the deeper context of the urgency. With that in mind, seems that von is likely not only help on the “back end” of time to abandonment, but also helps on the “front end” with the 14% uptick in “unassisted use” or fistula use without further intervention. I imagine these surgeons have to plan their workload very carefully with a two week window.

Correcting myself: I said fistula failure but meant fistula abandonment

Ah thanks for the course correction. I even see it in the paper now where it says secondary patency is more relevant to surgeons/nephrologists.

Also noticed they intended to follow up on patients for fistula failure for an additional two years. Seems that analysis would be available NLT early 2020 and would provide the kind of data practitioners would really like to see.

Yep I’m playing this more cautious than Reduce-It. you’ve finally convinced me to diversify for the first time in 4 years

Re: time to loss of patency - median days von 214 / placebo 171

https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(18)31337-5/pdf

Doesn’t sound great but when you look at page 7 charts the separation of K-M curves increases with time. I don’t think the data will be definitive on that point without a longer trial, but probably compelling enough for practitioners to infer benefit and use their experiences to decide for themselves.

Agree with jt that doubling the sample size tilts the probability of trial success in our favor substantially

Kiwi,

Stumbled across your tip for this on Dew’s board. After a sleepless night (jetlag) of digging, I’ve come to the same conclusion and taken a position with 4k shares.

I’m not savvy on the MOA but I can read the stats picture and I like what I see. If I were to handicap it I’d say 85% stat-sig on the co-primaries. Reminds me of Jelis and JLs posts about betting on races that have already been run.

Saw that note from JMP suggesting market potential of a billion... does your wife have any thoughts on that? Sounds a bit optimistic to me

Zip, I agree the FDA has final say over how broad the label will be. My question is whether the snda contains a draft or proposed label sought by the submitting company.

Anchor label would be my absolute lowest expectations, but I wonder how else they may define the patient population. History of MACE seems a poor way to define it.

In an snda does the filing company propose a label or is that entirely the FDA’s task? Wondering if AMRN could/would PR how broad of a label they will seek.

Card, I think any professional (doctor, lawyer, banker, pilot, scientist) should be at ease with outside scrutiny. I don’t work for the FAA but I think their delay in pulling the airworthiness of 737 Max 8s has rightfully earned criticism. It’s an area outside of my expertise but where I have enough knowledge to form an opinion.

Raf may be an asshole and he may not be right about the medical side, but he’s right that the freedom to scrutinize keeps corruption and incompetence in check in our society (yes I’m assuming your nationality)

Agree it would be unprecedented and am not holding my breath. I’m still catching up on posts from yesterday - just read your post 182163 and strongly agree. Looking forward to seeing how this all plays out.

I agree they’ll wait patiently, but should someone kick off a bidding war the ‘starting’ pps won’t matter relative to counter offers. They’ll keep making higher bids until they reach their respective perceived margins of risk/reward.

Dan I think that’s generally the rule but exceptions exist. To take a classic example: the RJR Nabisco LBO jumped pps from 56 to a winning bid of 109 in a few weeks. That’s 100% premium... 12b -> 25b. Also notable is that RJR Nabisco was a blue-chip consumer goods company - AMRN is a company with market exclusivity, excellent margins, and staggering growth potential.

Does it stand to reason then that AMRN could purchase a voucher for priority review if not granted one? Seems that four extra months of R-I label is worth $100 million

Exactly! You want to be controversial... and right. My 30 year old liver just can’t hang anymore...

I agree with you to a point: yes they want attention and that means they need to make a bit of a scene, but do you think they really want to come down on the wrong side of the controversy at the end?

Here’s a question for those who think MH and AF are shills and/or manipulators: If they are in it for some unscrupulous Benjamins, do you think they stand to make more at this time by dumping or pumping AMRN?