Seeking Alpha

cstauffer

cstauffer
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View cstauffer's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 10 Reasons Why Every Serious Investor Should Read Barrons [View article]
    I concur on the value of reading Barron's as an investor. To me Barron's attempts to cater to the long-term investor versus the typical mutual fund allocator or short-term trader. Their is more focus on attributes of actual businesses, valuation subjects and industries than you really get anywhere else. Interviews of investment professionals are focused again on long-term investors versus traders (fast money types). I have been a Barron's subscriber for 15 years and I still look forward to getting each week's issue.
    Jan 19, 2015. 07:45 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • New Projections For EBITDA At Freeport-McMoRan [View article]
    Thank you for your timely work on FCX. You have not mentioned how much of the drop in the share price of FCX from the high 20's to the low 20's is simply related to tax loss selling versus more fundamental factors that you write about. Do you have any opinion on the tax loss selling effect? Also, what, if any, opinion do you have on the safety of the dividend over the next 12 - 24 months?
    Dec 31, 2014. 11:04 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • North Atlantic Drilling: Buying Where There's Blood [View article]
    Trying to answer why a small cap stock's price drops or rises significantly over any short period of time is futile. It is very possible that some relatively large investors in the stock simply dumped it in order to remove the position from sight and lock in substantial capital losses ahead of year-end. NADL is a complex investment at this point to analyze, but at the end of the day this company has substantial physical assets and a unique expertise within the market which they operate.
    Nov 23, 2014. 03:48 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Alcobra's Metadoxine trial fails to show efficacy vs. placebo, share down AH [View news story]
    tail, I believe that there are many such drugs on the market that scientists do not know exactly how they work, they only know that they do work or they facilitate a secondary response that helps the patient. To me the biggest plus of MDX is its safety profile. The safety profile should provide a much more liberal attitude when it comes to FDA approval even in the face of some of the issues that you raise. MDX could be utilized safely by the inattentive population in order to derive benefit either by itself or in conjunction with other treatment options. It could also be tried by the hyperactive population in conjunction with other treatments in order to safely determine with a benefit result on a patient by patient basis. At this point the company's stock is reflecting a $57 million market cap and this seems to reflect the slanted reporting on trial results for MDX as opposed to the more nuanced analysis provided by biotech analysts who actually have followed this company and the MDX trials for years.
    Oct 24, 2014. 12:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Alcobra's Metadoxine trial fails to show efficacy vs. placebo, share down AH [View news story]
    tail, that is not my point at all. My point is that it appears to me that the traders in this stock are missing the forest for the trees. As large as the ADHD population is, MDX does not necessarily have to be an unambiguous success across the entire population to be commercially viable and thus a valuable treatment alternative. This treatment has consistently showed a statistically relevant improvement in the inattentive ADHD population, which is very large by itself. It appears to me that besides a handful of subjects from both the placebo and MDX cohorts in the Phase III study that it also had a statistically significant improvement across the entire population. I cannot speak to the "mechanism of action" issue. I do know that the company has studied the mechanism of action and have indicated from studies on mice and humans that they have identified the areas of the brain that are impacted by MDX in a way which improves actions that compromised with those suffering with ADHD.

    I am not trying to change your mind at all and I am not necessarily making a case for a certain stock price, what I am debating is that the reporting on the MDX studies appear me to be consistently slanted toward those data points which create the perception of failure without providing an objective discussion about the nuances and context of this information. There is a reason that most highly informed biotech analysts who cover this company are much more constructive on MDX.
    Oct 24, 2014. 12:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Alcobra's Metadoxine trial fails to show efficacy vs. placebo, share down AH [View news story]
    Tail, I believe that excluding the subjects who were excluded was a result of following parameters built into the study from the beginning. It is certainly not unheard of in statistics to exclude outliers or disqualify certain subjects in the case of a study such as this who end up having certain health related issues that could influence the legitimacy of the results or in the case of one of these subjects, a conflict of interest surfaces that could influence the objectivity of that subjects results. Please explain to me why designing a study which allows for significant outliers to be excluded and allows for subjects who have circumstances that would or could distort scores makes the study less reliable and not more.

    Would you be saying the same thing if the topline p score had been .38 before exclusions and .70 after exclusions and the company simply declared the drug a success even though a small number of subjects given MDX showed an unexplained more than 3 standard deviation score improvement and without them included there was not a statistically significant overall improvement in the cohort? I am not arguing that they should not have to do another study, however I will argue that the exclusions that occurred in this study made the adhoc results more compelling and accurate.
    Oct 23, 2014. 04:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Alcobra's Metadoxine trial fails to show efficacy vs. placebo, share down AH [View news story]
    Tail,

    Why do you say that it is becoming increasingly clear that the mechanism of action is not MDX? In every study that they have done in Phase II MDX showed a statistically significant improvement in CAARS scores for the inattentive group, but no such improvement in the hyper-active group. In this latest Phase III, when excluding a small number of subjects in both the MDX group and Placebo group which had unexplained outlier scores and those who were deemed to have conditions which violate the study's criteria, MDX had a statistically signficant P score on the entire population of treated subjects.

    We must remember that MDX has repeated shown itself to have no adverse side-affects compared to placebo subjects. Given this, if commercialized and it improves the lives of 90% of those who take it without any side-affects, how is this not a viable drug for those who suffer from ADHD?
    Oct 23, 2014. 03:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Alcobra's Metadoxine trial fails to show efficacy vs. placebo, share down AH [View news story]
    Adgamonal, no what I am saying is that the people who write about this data in the press have repeatedly reported it in a slanted way. This data has a lot of moving parts to it and requires context and some level of commonsense, however most reports in the press have only reported topline results without the appropriate level of context. On the other hand biotech analysts who report on trials like this have generally been much more and appropriately nuanced when it comes to discussing these results.
    Oct 23, 2014. 03:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Alcobra's Metadoxine trial fails to show efficacy vs. placebo, share down AH [View news story]
    adgamonal, on page 28 you can clearly see that when excluding the two placebo outliers and those excluded for criteria violations, the P value is statistically significant at .0383. The reporting on the company's slides is just a regurgitation of the same slanted reporting that occurred earlier in the month. When first reported in early October, the company was clear that when all subjects were included that the results were not statistically significant, however when, per the design of the study, the outliers were excluded, there was a statistically significant improvement. It is not a surprise that the company is going to do another study with improvements made in how the subjects are selected in order to attempt to reduce the number of criteria violations and hopefully significant outliers. It should be noted again that the same "outlier" and criteria violation parameters allied equally to both the placebo and MDX group. The reporting on this MDX study have been extremely slanted toward putting the results in the least favorable light possible.
    Oct 22, 2014. 10:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Best U.S. Stock Ideas Today: 10/16/14 [View article]
    I did not understand the Sensata (ST) section of the article. It appears that the content about Macau and gaming may have been mistakenly associated with ST. Please clarify. Thanks
    Oct 17, 2014. 01:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Alcobra ADHD Drug Disappoints [View article]
    bagbrian, of course the market overreacted because the vast majority of the float in these types of stocks are bought and sold by speculative short-term traders. These traders don't care about any context or qualifications, they trade perceptions and many times they shape those perceptions for their own self serving reasons.
    Oct 14, 2014. 12:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Retirement Strategy: It Is A Correction, Not A Crash [View article]
    Rebel, I am sympathetic to your position. I could care less whether or not the S&P 500 is in a 10% + correction given that the top 10 stocks in that index total 2% of the index by number, but 18% by contribution to performance. To state the the "market" is in a 10%+ correction or not it would be better to look at the number of stocks that have dropped that far from their recent highs. Or you could simply look at an equal weighted S&P 500 ETF such as RSP. That ETF is down around 8.50% from its September high as of yesterday's close. This is probably a much better measure of where the broad market stands.
    Oct 14, 2014. 12:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Retirement Strategy: It Is A Correction, Not A Crash [View article]
    Using Chowder's logic, President Carter should get the credit for Reagan's 2nd term economy and Reagan's 1st term policies should be blamed for the S&L crisis and the 1990-91 recession.
    Oct 13, 2014. 01:44 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Retirement Strategy: It Is A Correction, Not A Crash [View article]
    Give me a break!
    Oct 13, 2014. 12:53 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Retirement Strategy: It Is A Correction, Not A Crash [View article]
    Hussman is caught in the trap of being perennially wrong and not being able to reverse course without conceding that his wrongness was an error. If he keeps saying the same thing he will eventually be right and at that time declare victory. Don't expect Hussman to say anything different that he has been saying.
    Oct 13, 2014. 12:01 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
462 Comments
552 Likes