Actually it is very easy work. The challenge and work is being part of the "in crowd" that gets to buy these bonds.
In addition you get far more than 4.5% guaranteed. Remember the value tied to the short position. That value can be used for other transactions while you have no exposure and make 4.5% on essentially pennies
The bond holder does not have to convert until they want to. The $14.86 is simply the conversion price tied to the stock. If at the time the bonds expire, the stock is less than $14.86, then the bond holder takes cash. If it is higher, they take the equity.
This is exactly the type of hedging that I try to explain some invested in arena that feel all of the shorts are underwater. There are plenty of strategies that involve shorting, but do not place that investor under water.
That would imply that the notes were known to those buying them well in advance of the market. I am not saying that these things do not happen, but realistically speaking 60 days is a long time, and what pens if an entity takes a short position and winds up with none or too few of the bonds?
Typically the bonds go through an offering and several buyers are found. Bond buyers are also usually more conservative. Taking on a short position without the bond in place to insulate that position from risk would add risk to an otherwise very safe trade.
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
Sts....
There are never any guarantees. We also do not always know what we have. That is why it is important to know the potential both ways....upside and risk.
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
Allstar....
Thank you for the response. If there is a buyout, it will need to be structured in a way that leaves the NOL's in tact. They are very valuable to anyone invested in this company
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
Joseph....
All of these do carry potential, but the performance of this equity in the near and mid term is hinged to Belviq as an anti-obesity treatment. The numbers need to show promise to justify valuations and see valuations improve.
The biggest mistake people make when reading my articles is that thought that my opinions are geared toward the longer term. My articles are more geared to the near and mid term for more active traders, or investors that want to be active with a portion of there position. I sold half of my position months ago for a 40% gain. I held half for the potential. The cash I got from that sale went into an equity that has since more than doubled. Just because I see better opportunity elsewhere does not mean that I do not like Arena. Many readers fail to see or comprehend this. They simply fly into attack mode. From that point they can never admit to appreciating anything I have to say as they will lose cred. On their message board of choice. If these people would stop and think for a few moments about what is written and how it is written they would see this.
Most all know the many positive attributes and potential this company has. Very few will ever discuss the risk side of the equation. Both sides are very important.
I gt an email just today stating that I was labeling $8 as a target so that the shorts (and I) could cover there. While there are many readers of my articles, I do not for a second pretend tat I carry tat much influence. The most humorous aspect of tat is that I am long not short, and have never shorted this equity.
It is okay to look at potential, and pipeline, but the overall market and sector needs to be considered when doing so.
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
Wretched....
It is always possible that there could be some foot dragging or acceleration one way or the other. If that happens, the the partnership that everyone assumes is so strong and so good really isn't that strong and good. I suspect each company will try to be aggressive in hitting these targets.
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
Jim....
Couple of items
40,000 x $200 x 12 months = $96,000,000
40,000 people on the drug for a year gets you to that type of revenue
Many readers consider my 40,000 in 3 months way to lw and crucify me as a basher or soft basher. Ironic that you say there is no way they get 40,000 in 3 months
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
Bulldog....
That is where investors need to be concerned regarding any potential change on control. I know that many investors want to see big pharma come in with an offer. Yes, it would be great, as long as it also considers the value of these NOL's. they allow a tax savings approaching $300 million at this point
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
Smit....
It was a good presentation.
The comment about change in ownership was likely in relation to the NOL's. a change of control would severely impact the NOL's if not handled correctly. Bi am actually working on an article on that subject. The NOL's are a very big "asset" for Arena, and the company will not want to lose or impact that asset.
Sirius XM went through a very similar issue. When Sirius and XM merged, they ad to essentially stand still for three years. It is why Liberty Media could not go over 49.9% ownership for three years. The company was protecting billions of dollars worth of NOL's.
A lot of Arena investors need to know that being excited about prospects of a potential buyout is a big deal, but there is a huge asset that is very meaningful to Arena investors that needs to be valued properly if a buyout or change in control were to happen.
Essentially the company will not have to pay taxes for quite a while. There are many parallels between Sirius XM and Arena that some may scoff at, but they would be well served to consider.
Stay tuned. I will ave a piece covering the NOL's soon. There will indeed be some that will view the piece as something not so bullish, but those that feel that way will be short sighted. Protection of the NOL "asset" is of paramount importance for investors.
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
Several questions there.
1. While year 1 is not outlined specifically, it would most likely be (with about 99% certainty) 365 days. It would make little sense to outline such a target in a ontrat without the understanding that year 1 relates to 356 days.
2. From what we have seen in the deal,new can arrive at the conclusion that other territories are included. There was a point in time where the deal was modified to include these other territories
3. Again, whie deals are not available to specifically answer, it is highly likely that all sales are included. The company, nor Eisai has any mechanism to monitor on label vs off label use.
Arena, Vivus, And Off-Label Prescriptions [View article]
smit...
That has been my point all along. It happens to benefit both Arena and Vivus.
This statement oft came up (usually from very passionate Arena longs):
" Why will Vivus be successful when the generic components of it are already available and cheaper"
My answer has always been that doctors have more risk scripting off label and now that an on label obesity drug is on the market they may well move to scriptiong on label and avoiding risk.
Many of these Arena longs were too short sighted to see that when Belviq was launched that the same question and same answer apply.
Arena, Vivus, And Off-Label Prescriptions [View article]
smit....
We may both be splitting hairs here. My stance is that a doctor scripting off label carries additional responsibilities that if not met open him up possible litigation. When an on-label script is available the doctor needs to have pretty sound reasoning to script off label.
When a doctor scripts off label, especially if there is no history of doctors using a drug for similar things, that doctor is essentially taking on the roll of conducting a study. If the doctor fails to inform the patient, then there could be serious implications.
If you had some walk into your office today and they were scripted a phen and top. cocktail off label would you not ask if the doctor discussed Belviq or Qsymia with them? As an attorney, would that not be a natural course you would take?
I got an email today from someone saying that scripting Belviq for treatment of type II diabetes is on label because the label mentions diabetes. The confusion this person has is directly related to our discussion. This person is mis-informed to a severe degree. Scripting Belviq to treat type II diabetes is not at all on label. It is approved for weight loss in people that have a BMI of 27 to 30 and have Type II diabetes. It is also available to anyone with a BMI of 30 or more regardless of comorbid conditions.
The on label script for Belviq relates to weight treatment.
Thus, even a person with a BMI of 28 would not be scripted Belviq to treat type II diabetes. That would be off label. The doctor would take the safe path in this case and script the drug for the weight. The type II diabetes may well improve.
I do believe that it will be possible that doctors will script Belviq for treatment of diabetes off label, but they need to take on added responsibility to do so
Arena, Vivus, And Off-Label Prescriptions [View article]
smit....
The additional responsibly that a doctor must cover when scripting off label is because of there is added risk to the patient when this happens. The doctor is taking on some responsibility for that added risk if they do not take the additional step necessary
Arena, Vivus, And Off-Label Prescriptions [View article]
Smit....
Please do not try to put words into my mouth. You lack the intellect to do that.
What I stated is quite simple. When a doctor scripts off label (especially when on label remedies are available) that doctor increases his or her liability.
Liability is the level of responsibility. A doctor scripting off label has a greater responsibility to the patient. Are you trying to argue that?
What transpired was that you said there was no added liability and that success in a suit is not easy. I agree with the fact that bringing a successful suit is never easy. That does not change the fact that a doctor will have a more difficult time pushing the suit off to the drug maker. If the doctor scripted on label he has a very defensible position in pointing to the FDA approved uses. Thus, if there was a bad reaction to the drug, the doctor can say that he relied upon the science behind the approved drug used in the proved manner.
If a doctor is scripting off label, he takes on the added responsibility and less defensible position of having blazed his own trail. If other doctors have already been blazing that trail, it becomes an easier defense.
In the case of arena and Qsymia, doctors scripting generic phen and top because there was no other on label solution, now have the on label solution (Qsymia and Belviq) to add into the mix. If a person has a bad reaction to the generic phen and top, that patient may well pose the question, " why was I not scripted Belviq?"
The doctor will expend money, time, and energy defending his choice, whereas if he had scripted on label, his insurance company would argue that the defense needs to come from the drug manufacturer and not the doctor.
Vivus Taps Into More Cash [View article]
Actually it is very easy work. The challenge and work is being part of the "in crowd" that gets to buy these bonds.
In addition you get far more than 4.5% guaranteed. Remember the value tied to the short position. That value can be used for other transactions while you have no exposure and make 4.5% on essentially pennies
Vivus Taps Into More Cash [View article]
The bond holder does not have to convert until they want to. The $14.86 is simply the conversion price tied to the stock. If at the time the bonds expire, the stock is less than $14.86, then the bond holder takes cash. If it is higher, they take the equity.
This is exactly the type of hedging that I try to explain some invested in arena that feel all of the shorts are underwater. There are plenty of strategies that involve shorting, but do not place that investor under water.
Vivus Taps Into More Cash [View article]
That would imply that the notes were known to those buying them well in advance of the market. I am not saying that these things do not happen, but realistically speaking 60 days is a long time, and what pens if an entity takes a short position and winds up with none or too few of the bonds?
Typically the bonds go through an offering and several buyers are found. Bond buyers are also usually more conservative. Taking on a short position without the bond in place to insulate that position from risk would add risk to an otherwise very safe trade.
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
There are never any guarantees. We also do not always know what we have. That is why it is important to know the potential both ways....upside and risk.
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
Thank you for the response. If there is a buyout, it will need to be structured in a way that leaves the NOL's in tact. They are very valuable to anyone invested in this company
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
All of these do carry potential, but the performance of this equity in the near and mid term is hinged to Belviq as an anti-obesity treatment. The numbers need to show promise to justify valuations and see valuations improve.
The biggest mistake people make when reading my articles is that thought that my opinions are geared toward the longer term. My articles are more geared to the near and mid term for more active traders, or investors that want to be active with a portion of there position. I sold half of my position months ago for a 40% gain. I held half for the potential. The cash I got from that sale went into an equity that has since more than doubled. Just because I see better opportunity elsewhere does not mean that I do not like Arena. Many readers fail to see or comprehend this. They simply fly into attack mode. From that point they can never admit to appreciating anything I have to say as they will lose cred. On their message board of choice. If these people would stop and think for a few moments about what is written and how it is written they would see this.
Most all know the many positive attributes and potential this company has. Very few will ever discuss the risk side of the equation. Both sides are very important.
I gt an email just today stating that I was labeling $8 as a target so that the shorts (and I) could cover there. While there are many readers of my articles, I do not for a second pretend tat I carry tat much influence. The most humorous aspect of tat is that I am long not short, and have never shorted this equity.
It is okay to look at potential, and pipeline, but the overall market and sector needs to be considered when doing so.
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
It is always possible that there could be some foot dragging or acceleration one way or the other. If that happens, the the partnership that everyone assumes is so strong and so good really isn't that strong and good. I suspect each company will try to be aggressive in hitting these targets.
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
Couple of items
40,000 x $200 x 12 months = $96,000,000
40,000 people on the drug for a year gets you to that type of revenue
Many readers consider my 40,000 in 3 months way to lw and crucify me as a basher or soft basher. Ironic that you say there is no way they get 40,000 in 3 months
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
That is where investors need to be concerned regarding any potential change on control. I know that many investors want to see big pharma come in with an offer. Yes, it would be great, as long as it also considers the value of these NOL's. they allow a tax savings approaching $300 million at this point
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
It was a good presentation.
The comment about change in ownership was likely in relation to the NOL's. a change of control would severely impact the NOL's if not handled correctly. Bi am actually working on an article on that subject. The NOL's are a very big "asset" for Arena, and the company will not want to lose or impact that asset.
Sirius XM went through a very similar issue. When Sirius and XM merged, they ad to essentially stand still for three years. It is why Liberty Media could not go over 49.9% ownership for three years. The company was protecting billions of dollars worth of NOL's.
A lot of Arena investors need to know that being excited about prospects of a potential buyout is a big deal, but there is a huge asset that is very meaningful to Arena investors that needs to be valued properly if a buyout or change in control were to happen.
Essentially the company will not have to pay taxes for quite a while. There are many parallels between Sirius XM and Arena that some may scoff at, but they would be well served to consider.
Stay tuned. I will ave a piece covering the NOL's soon. There will indeed be some that will view the piece as something not so bullish, but those that feel that way will be short sighted. Protection of the NOL "asset" is of paramount importance for investors.
Arena Outlines Belviq Launch And Goals [View article]
1. While year 1 is not outlined specifically, it would most likely be (with about 99% certainty) 365 days. It would make little sense to outline such a target in a ontrat without the understanding that year 1 relates to 356 days.
2. From what we have seen in the deal,new can arrive at the conclusion that other territories are included. There was a point in time where the deal was modified to include these other territories
3. Again, whie deals are not available to specifically answer, it is highly likely that all sales are included. The company, nor Eisai has any mechanism to monitor on label vs off label use.
Tons for the comment
Arena, Vivus, And Off-Label Prescriptions [View article]
That has been my point all along. It happens to benefit both Arena and Vivus.
This statement oft came up (usually from very passionate Arena longs):
" Why will Vivus be successful when the generic components of it are already available and cheaper"
My answer has always been that doctors have more risk scripting off label and now that an on label obesity drug is on the market they may well move to scriptiong on label and avoiding risk.
Many of these Arena longs were too short sighted to see that when Belviq was launched that the same question and same answer apply.
Arena, Vivus, And Off-Label Prescriptions [View article]
We may both be splitting hairs here. My stance is that a doctor scripting off label carries additional responsibilities that if not met open him up possible litigation. When an on-label script is available the doctor needs to have pretty sound reasoning to script off label.
When a doctor scripts off label, especially if there is no history of doctors using a drug for similar things, that doctor is essentially taking on the roll of conducting a study. If the doctor fails to inform the patient, then there could be serious implications.
If you had some walk into your office today and they were scripted a phen and top. cocktail off label would you not ask if the doctor discussed Belviq or Qsymia with them? As an attorney, would that not be a natural course you would take?
I got an email today from someone saying that scripting Belviq for treatment of type II diabetes is on label because the label mentions diabetes. The confusion this person has is directly related to our discussion. This person is mis-informed to a severe degree. Scripting Belviq to treat type II diabetes is not at all on label. It is approved for weight loss in people that have a BMI of 27 to 30 and have Type II diabetes. It is also available to anyone with a BMI of 30 or more regardless of comorbid conditions.
The on label script for Belviq relates to weight treatment.
Thus, even a person with a BMI of 28 would not be scripted Belviq to treat type II diabetes. That would be off label. The doctor would take the safe path in this case and script the drug for the weight. The type II diabetes may well improve.
I do believe that it will be possible that doctors will script Belviq for treatment of diabetes off label, but they need to take on added responsibility to do so
Arena, Vivus, And Off-Label Prescriptions [View article]
The additional responsibly that a doctor must cover when scripting off label is because of there is added risk to the patient when this happens. The doctor is taking on some responsibility for that added risk if they do not take the additional step necessary
Arena, Vivus, And Off-Label Prescriptions [View article]
Please do not try to put words into my mouth. You lack the intellect to do that.
What I stated is quite simple. When a doctor scripts off label (especially when on label remedies are available) that doctor increases his or her liability.
Liability is the level of responsibility. A doctor scripting off label has a greater responsibility to the patient. Are you trying to argue that?
What transpired was that you said there was no added liability and that success in a suit is not easy. I agree with the fact that bringing a successful suit is never easy. That does not change the fact that a doctor will have a more difficult time pushing the suit off to the drug maker. If the doctor scripted on label he has a very defensible position in pointing to the FDA approved uses. Thus, if there was a bad reaction to the drug, the doctor can say that he relied upon the science behind the approved drug used in the proved manner.
If a doctor is scripting off label, he takes on the added responsibility and less defensible position of having blazed his own trail. If other doctors have already been blazing that trail, it becomes an easier defense.
In the case of arena and Qsymia, doctors scripting generic phen and top because there was no other on label solution, now have the on label solution (Qsymia and Belviq) to add into the mix. If a person has a bad reaction to the generic phen and top, that patient may well pose the question, " why was I not scripted Belviq?"
The doctor will expend money, time, and energy defending his choice, whereas if he had scripted on label, his insurance company would argue that the defense needs to come from the drug manufacturer and not the doctor.
Thus, added liability. It is really quite simple.