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.
It make be striking to you, but it makes perfect sense when dealing with a naive population for RSV vs a population which most people had previous infections like for Covid.
What Foley is saying is meaningless, just as are the Instagram posts touting Daxxify that some keep posting here. What matters are sales numbers over the next year and beyond.
Congraulations and thanks for the detailed explanation of why you like VKTX. I was considering buying in but waited a bit too long. I will likely buy VKTX and even LLY soon to get in on the obesity gravy train.
For me. I sold half of my shares on Jan 23rd at $5.98 to generate a tax loss to counter a part of my IMGN gains for 2024. I doubled my shares in the 4th quarter of 2023 so I am back to where I was. I will buy back after the 30 day wash rule has passed. I have been hoping the stock price keeps around $6 so I won't pay more to get back to where I was but the way it looks I may get a bargain.
The things of true value are a person's word and their honesty. You lied about being short and that has destroyed any credibility you have/had. Why would someone lie about being short? There are multiple possible reasons why. One could have claimed to be short when they weren't. That could indicate low self-esteem as the person claimed they made a great decision about a stock declining after the fact. On the other hand, a person claiming they weren't short when they actually were means they were afraid to state the truth because they didn't want their previous comments about Daxxify (which were baseless) to be questioned or their motivation questions. Either one is pathetic. You can post long winded justification but I have no plans to read them or any future posts you make.
Speaking of Covid PIs, we have heard a word about PFE's Covid drug that doesn't need ritonavir for about 4 months or so after their phase 2 study completed. The data must not have been good.
Using a system where small numbers of people report their results rather than random surveys of a large number of people is meaningless. That goes for instagram or your trivial review page where 33 people gave their opinions. You would have to assess a larger number of people and parse them by injectors as some injectors and their supposed practices, such as you and yours, seem incapable of injecting Daxxify properly.
You raise 2 good points that were a problem but are no longer as much of a problem, if any.
First, RVNC erred in charging a premium price instead of grabbing market share. EOLS understood that. The Daxxify price has been lowered to lessen the price issue.
Second, yes, injectors need to be trained on how it inject Daxxify to get the maximum duration. That is part of the reason the uptake has been lower than RVBC investors had hoped. It seems that more injectors are being trained and more people are using Daxxify, and that is encouraging. I am hopeful that therapeutics will given a much needed boost later in the year.
FWIW, I sold off close to half my RVNC yesterday to generate a tax loss which I need offset some of my IMGN gains when its sale is completed this summer. I hope RVNC stays low so I can buy back after the 30 day wash rule time frame has passed. This seems to provide a nice window as I don't expect any major upside over that time frame. I had doubled my shares as RVNC price dramatically dropped in late summer and fall so I am back to where I was sharewise from the fall after doubling my shares over the summer. The only other place I have to generate a tax loss is ENTA but I am waiting on that. I also doubled my shares of ENTA over the summer. ENTA has been a better move than my doubling of RVNC as ENTA has risen since those buys although I am still down by some 50%.
Adding the prospect of putting data in a poster is moving the goal posts, and quite frankly, I am surprised you did that. Putting the data in a poster has no real value. Posters aren't peer reviewed and should always be considered unverified data and or preliminary data. More importantly, data on posters also won't move the needle on any potential FDA approval for a label change.
That doesn't make any sense. If they can increase duration, it becomes a big selling point to take share from Allergan's Botox. Why in the world would they not want to put that on the market?
The point is that other toxin drugs have a higher risk of spreading than Daxxify, and that is a real worry if you increase their dosage. The issues for Daxxify was to either use less to get the same duration as other Botox drugs (more profit for injectors) or have injectors be properly trained because the toxin doesn't spread as easily as other toxins so the pattern of injections will be slightly different.
I haven't seen any such data about higher doses of Dysport. Either you are lying about duration or hoping it is true.
A weakness in your analysis is that Daxxify is the ONLY there longer lasting toxin on the market and there isn't any timeline out there yet for when, or even if, another will get FDA approval. Nevertheless, you are missing the point of marketing and human nature. If there is a major marketing campaign about longer lasting neurotoxins, then MORE customers will want a longer lasting neurotoxin. That means standard shorter acting toxin like Botox will lose market share to longer lasting toxin, one of which is Daxxify. Of course, Daxxify will be there first so has an edge.
Ha, ha. Where is the detailed presentation of data?
I don't see the data presented in detail anywhere from what you or CT1922 linked. The important points are that their supposedly longer lasting toxin isn't approved ANYWHERE, and more importantly, even if their toxin was longer duration similar to Daxxify, it isn't something RVNC should be worried about. There will be more and more talk about longer acting toxins so it is Allergan and Evolus who are the ones who should be worried about losing market share.
CosmeticMD, you expressed your opinion, which is fine. However, your claims of product shortcomings are not based in data or facts. RVNC's issues so far in not grabbing market share were due to faulty launch strategies, not from shortcomings of Daxxify. Longs like me are hoping these marketing issues will eventually be corrected.
It is fine if you want to be short RVNC or any other stock. However, it is clear you did lie about not being short as Ed showed from your 2 posts made one week apart. Why would someone lie about being short? Why did you lie about it?
Why don't you provide some links to back up your claims? Personally, I don't trust people with new aliases, and who only have made a few posts and only on one board.
While it may provide a bit of comfort to see instagram posts from physicians which tout Daxxify, none of them really matters. Sales numbers over the next few quarters and over the next 2 years is what really matters now. Well, milestone payments too.
You don't know the Chinese sales potential but you know it is quite small AT THE MOMENT. If you don't know the potential, how can you be so dismissive of its value to RVNC?
CD is certainly a big enough market to make a difference to RVNC's bottom line. More over, the Daxxify data was far superior to Botox both in terms of duration and reduction of unwanted ptosis of surrounding areas. The therapeutic market is more than CD.
Smart move doing the opposite. Analysts tell the public to buy when the price is high and sell when it is low. Not sure why anyone would expect Wall Street to give their best timely advice to the general public for free.