or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Talking stocks, trading, and investing in general
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Talking stocks, trading, and investing in general - Page 538

post #8056 of 11190
I don't know the mechanics of such deal making, but I'm assuming they haven't actually issued the bonds to back this deal yet. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in light of the market eschewing high yield.
post #8057 of 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post


yeah it's at 20/share +/- whatever. cheap enough that it won't kill you
if you check out , it was a very tight margin by which it was deemed viable by oncologists so the people who would use these aren't even all on board. yeah sure the FDA approved it but that says nothing about market performance except giving a green light to try. its gains are minimal -- a single peer-reviewed publication shows 6 months mean extra survival time , that's really not worth the costs to insurance companies so who will pay for it ? i can't see it lasting long if that's the case

What is the source on that? I only reviewed their website pretty quickly, so would be interested to read more. 

 

FDA approval means basic efficacy is there, but not much more. 6 months honestly isn't bad for this kind of treatment. 

 

Insurance may pay depending on the cost. The problem that I see is that it is only an indication for final treatment.

 

"Optune with temozolomide is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed, supratentorial glioblastoma following maximal debulking surgery and completion of radiation therapy together with concomitant standard of care chemotherapy"

 

If it was an alternative to chemo, maybe they would be interested due to the lower intensity of side effects, but as an add on it is a lot harder to justify. That said, it medicare picked it up you could see a massive bump in sales. 

post #8058 of 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

, but the chance of a $200 stock going to $2000 seems less likely than a new technology blowing up from $20 to $200 ? i'm not day trading and that's not a very deep way of thinking about it but anyway that's all a moot point because i don't expect insurance companies would be too excited about paying for such minimal gains. i could be wrong though

There is a small correlation to that, but I would suggest that it is not causative. It just happens that $200 stocks tend to belong to companies with larger market caps that are less likely to make big moves. Lower price per share stocks might belong to younger companies that have room to grow.

But that doesn't actually mean anything--a $200 company could do a 10:1 split tomorrow and be a $20 company again. AT&T is about a $30 stock...and there is no way in hell that it will become a $300 stock. Netflix was a $200 stock back in early 2013, and would have been a $900 stock in August if not for the fact that they wen't through a 7:1 split.

And really, if you want to extend the fallacy...while it seems easier for a $20 stock to blow up to $200...doesn't it also kind of seem like it would be easier for a puffy $200 stock to lose $100 than for a $20 stock to lose a full $10?
post #8059 of 11190
^ yes that all makes sense , thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchapiro View Post

What is the source on that? I only reviewed their website pretty quickly, so would be interested to read more. 

FDA approval means basic efficacy is there, but not much more. 6 months honestly isn't bad for this kind of treatment. 

Insurance may pay depending on the cost. The problem that I see is that it is only an indication for final treatment.

"Optune with temozolomide is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed, supratentorial glioblastoma following maximal debulking surgery and completion of radiation therapy together with concomitant standard of care chemotherapy"

If it was an alternative to chemo, maybe they would be interested due to the lower intensity of side effects, but as an add on it is a lot harder to justify. That said, it medicare picked it up you could see a massive bump in sales. 

The FDA has expanded indication (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/852196) but as you said it's not an alternative it's a concomitant treatment. They don't have a proper double blind clinical trial , it can't disprove the null hypothesis that this is just placebo crap at this point !

You can check https://www.nccn.org/store/login/login.aspx?ReturnURL=http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cns.pdf

Here are more links
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/initial-postoperative-therapy-for-glioblastoma-and-anaplastic-astrocytoma
http://www.novocure.com/~/media/Files/N/Novocure/press-release/2014/201410_IDE_Supplement.pdf


https://www.anthem.com/medicalpolicies/policies/mp_pw_c141847.htm
And so far, "The use of devices to generate electric tumor treating fields (TTF) as a treatment for malignant tumors is considered investigational and not medically necessary."

But it costs $21k / mo and 6-month extension is really not significant enough for anyone, especially medicare, to pick it up...
post #8060 of 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenFrog View Post

I don't know the mechanics of such deal making, but I'm assuming they haven't actually issued the bonds to back this deal yet. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in light of the market eschewing high yield.

Correct.  The bonds will clear, but won't be cheap.  

post #8061 of 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

But it costs $21k / mo and 6-month extension is really not significant enough for anyone, especially medicare, to pick it up...

Lol. No chance at that price. Interesting concept at least. 

 

I have seen companies like this before. Give it a few years and no one will feel like funding them, then maybe someone else buys them.

post #8062 of 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

none taken :-) i'm not advocating doing that , but anyway you can read more about the product and the information out there doesn't bode well in my opinion, for what it's worth.
agreed , but the chance of a $200 stock going to $2000 seems less likely than a new technology blowing up from $20 to $200 ? i'm not day trading and that's not a very deep way of thinking about it but anyway that's all a moot point because i don't expect insurance companies would be too excited about paying for such minimal gains. i could be wrong though

That's never been any difficulties for $200 stock to go to $2000.

Step 1, 1-10 stock split, changing the base to $20.
Step 2. ???
Step 3, stock price at $200. Profit!!!
post #8063 of 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenFrog View Post

I don't know the mechanics of such deal making, but I'm assuming they haven't actually issued the bonds to back this deal yet. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in light of the market eschewing high yield.

They have SilverLake and Temasek behind. Plenty of dry powder there.
post #8064 of 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

They have SilverLake and Temasek behind. Plenty of dry powder there.

I was going to say, I thought they have some pretty big VC money which helped them go private.
post #8065 of 11190
Is everyone geared up for earnings season?! I am excite.
post #8066 of 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I was going to say, I thought they have some pretty big VC money which helped them go private.

VC in US don't have such capital to do these deals; they barely have enough to do late stage deals nowadays.

Top foreign VC/PE hybrids are much larger than those based in the US, but even them won't be able to pull deal this size through.

This isn't paying couple hundred mil for small % of something to create a "unicorn". Anyone can put a paper cone on an ass and call it unicorn.
post #8067 of 11190
He obviously meant private equity/buyout-- same general structure, different strategy, different scale.
post #8068 of 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concordia View Post

He obviously meant private equity/buyout-- same general structure, different strategy, different scale.

Yes. Wasn't thinking straight.

I also looked. It looks like they're borrowing $40-50B depending on who is reporting to do this.

Regardless, it seems like a bad move to me.
post #8069 of 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Yes. Wasn't thinking straight.

I also looked. It looks like they're borrowing $40-50B depending on who is reporting to do this.

Regardless, it seems like a bad move to me.

Why? It's genius move for him personally.

Financially, Dell doesn't need to go under public investor scrutiny, can lever as much as he possibly can while interest rates are still low and EMC business cashflow is very stable.

Structurally, he can consolidate shitload of manufacturing and sales and marketing costs while gaining VMWare. Dell already acquired a lot of enterprise networking/computing firms including some security companies.

Anyone has a guess of their lever? 4x?
post #8070 of 11190
So basically Dell is going/has went from the, "Dood, you're getting a Dell!" company to enterprise solutions, servers, encryption, etc?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Business, Careers & Education
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Talking stocks, trading, and investing in general