Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View MarketSite11's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Keryx Biopharmaceuticals: Grim Realities Of The Dialysis Market Will Result In Commercial Failure [View article]
    You appear to be of the opinion that the ONLY formula for a successful drug launch is that it must meet all these criteria: 1) It must be partnered with a larger pharma, 2) It must not face any competitive products, 3) It must have a clear competitive advantage, either through efficacy and safety, or through pricing advantage, 4)It must have a mote such as orphan status or a unassailable patent wall. If such a high bar were to be uniformly applied to each of these companies I list, none would have been predicted to have been successful, and yet they were in fact successful anyway.
    Applying such a high set of standards to KERX that very few companies can ever attain is not analysis, but assassination, particularly in light of the fact that your article was published the day after the public offering announcement.
    Jan 22, 2014. 02:41 PM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Keryx Biopharmaceuticals: Grim Realities Of The Dialysis Market Will Result In Commercial Failure [View article]
    The number of companies with successful product launches is much larger than you proclaim. Just to mention a few: Regeneron, Eyelea; Biogen, Tecfidera; Gilead, Stribilid; Medivation and Astellas, Xtandi; Vertex, Kalydeco; Novartis, Afinitor; Genetech, Kadcyla; Amgen, Xgeva; Novo Nordisk, Victoza; J&J, Stelara; Novartis, Gilenya; Onyx, Kyprolis; J&J, Zytigia; Bayer, Xarelto; BMS, Yervoy.

    Regeneron was a small biotech when it released Eyelea. Its only advantage compared to Lucentis and Avastin was slightly less dosing burden and slightly less cost. Its competition was pharmaceutical giant Roche, and the off label use of the generic drug Avastin, which cost $50 per dose vs Eyelea's $1,850. In spite of the challenges, Regeneron's first year sales was $838 million.

    Vertex was a go it alone small biotech when it released Kalydeco. Meeting a significant unmeet need in the cystic fibrosis space, it experienced rapid uptake in the U.S., and then shortly after in the EU, achieving nearly 100% market penetration within 18 months.

    I could go on, but my point is that KERX faces commercializations challenges like any biotech but it 1) has a product that far outclasses any of the competition because of its safe dual action on phosphorus and iron and 2) market entry will be facilitated by the two dialysis center companies, Fresenius and Davita who both desperately need low cost solutions and won't buy into your poorly reasoned scenario where they use a low cost generic for phosphorus and a high cost IV iron, or an oral iron supplement which is NOT efficacious, and all of which have SERIOUS side effects and dosage burdens.

    With regard to your discussion of Zerenex in the non-dialysis population, I suggest you do a little more homework, as Phosphorus is not an FDA approvable end point in this space, but hemoglobin is. Given the recent approval for both labels by the Ministry of Health in Japan, the fact the EMA encouraged KERX to apply for both labels based upon the existing data, and the stastically significant Phase II results, KERX will soon be in discussions with the FDA about a label extension in the US. Even if this were not to occur, there is nothing preventing physicians from prescribing Zerenex off label for CKD 4 and 5, which they are likely to do if they think it will benefit their patients.

    As far as your Weak IP argument goes, you conveniently gloss over the substance of the recently issued Patent # 8,609,896, which will extend Zerenex's patent protection until 2024. In this patent VERY SPECIFIC dissolution rates and surface area ranges are described for ferric citrate, and any generic clever enough to come up with their own unique manufacturing process will find it likely impossible to demonstrate bioequivalence without infringing upon these physical thresholds. NCE would be nice, but simply is not necessary given the robustness of the existing patent estate.

    I suggest that you could do a far better job of "objectively accessing" KERXs asset value if you were to consider all the facts, and not just cherry pick a few negative examples to support your short thesis.
    Jan 22, 2014. 01:00 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Questcor: Continued Strong Earnings Will Drive It Over $90 - Part II [View article]
    A tax inversion is the process of reincorporating in a low tax rate country such as Ireland.

    Under current IRS rules, a company cannot simply establish an office and a few sales people in the low tax rate country, but must prove “substantial business activity”, which means a company must have 25 percent of assets, income and employees in the country where it moves its legal domicile, and must increase foreign ownership of its stock to more than 20 percent.

    Thus, a successful tax inversion can only be practically accomplished as part of a substantial sized merger or acquisition.

    Since QCOR has shown itself to be highly strategic recently in its small acquisitions, it should not be surprising to anyone if a large overseas acquisition is announced soon.
    Jan 14, 2014. 09:50 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Zacks' Bear Of The Day: Uni-Pixel [View article]

    You think the core technology being used now by UNXL is TMOS? A simple check would show you that was an old technology that UNXL was using over four years ago in their LED display designs.

    Also, SYNA is not a touch screen company. It makes the controllers that go with touch screen modules that are made by the likes of Atmel and Unipixel.
    Jan 9, 2014. 03:37 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Idiot's Guide To Why Questcor Is Suspicious [View article]
    Your article barely mentions four regulatory agencies investigating the company.

    It is mostly about what the NY Times article says about QCOR, which relied upon short slanted "publications in the investment world", what short investor Whitney Tilson said, and of course, what you said in previous SA articles, when you had a self proclaimed short position. Shorts citing shorts referencing shorsts is not substance, but is circular and empty.

    Your only attempt to provide substance was to repeat the old argument that QCOR increased the price on ACTHAR and in turn has itself been making a lot of money. That is a complaint, not a valid investment thesis, and is certainly legal in our free market economy.
    Dec 19, 2013. 01:09 PM | 15 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Idiot's Guide To Why Questcor Is Suspicious [View article]
    Shorts quoting shorts. Circular logic without substance. You have way too much time on your hands.
    Dec 19, 2013. 12:35 PM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Himax Q2 Earnings Report: Make Or Miss? [View article]
    My reading of Innolux Q2 earnings Aug 8 shows that, except for charges pertaining to a shutdown of their lamination operations, there were nice revenue increases in all form factor categories from Q1 to Q2.
    Aug 14, 2013. 05:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel May Be Mounting A Comeback [View article]

    Actually, Atmel IS bothering with XSense.

    It is in fact investing heavily in XSense as a revenue opportunity as noted by CEO Steven A. Laub in ATML's July 31 CC, "And we are engaged in numerous new product designs with several Tier 1 OEMs, as well as reference designs with Intel Corporation, a major ecosystem partner. We are now able to demonstrate XSense with excellent optical quality for very high-pixel-density displays such as full HD displays on smartphones and larger screens such as tablets and Ultrabooks. Additionally, we are on track to bringing on new capacity in the latter part of this year that will support at least $100 million of XSense revenue in 2014."
    Aug 8, 2013. 01:34 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel May Be Mounting A Comeback [View article]

    A Kodak video that does not mention Uni-Pixel is irrelevant. Kodak has mentioned Uni-Pixel many times in more important media venues such as Barron's and widely distributed press releases.

    Uni-Pixel does not have to dominate the touch screen market to be profitable.

    Kodak will continue to co produce and co market both copper AND silver touch sensors with Uni-Pixel.

    Kodak has not disassociated itself with Uni-Pixel, but has continued to reaffirm the importance of the relationship post bankruptcy.
    Aug 8, 2013. 01:13 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel May Be Mounting A Comeback [View article]

    The video did not mention Uni-Pixel because the subject of the piece was the Kingsbury partnership. And you fail to mention that Kodak's decision to make silver halide touch sensors will be in partnership with Uni-Pixel. See Kodak Lender's Presentation dated July 15, 2013, page 32, which says, "2014 - Phase 1.5...evolve the subtractive AgX process (Optimation/Kingsbury technology) to a direct printing of sensor grids partnering with Uni-Pixel"

    Kodak has not announced it will back out of its $24 million commitment to copper mesh technology in partnership with Uni-Pixel. It continues to build out facilities and equipment to accomplish the same. It has stated it intends to be commercially ready for product rollout in Q1 2014.

    Kodak and Uni-Pixel will be jointly producing copper AND silver touch sensors by mid 2014.
    Aug 8, 2013. 11:33 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Unipixel's Questionnable Accounting Q1 2013 [View instapost]
    Concerning your comments of R&D, I am not sure where you got your figures from. I got mine from the SEC 10Q and 10K.

    In them you can see that R&D increased by more than $800,000 1st Quarter 2013 compared to 1st Quarter 2012. The average R&D expense per quarter for all of 2012 was less than $1.3 million compared to Q1 2013 R&D expense of $1.9 million.

    Further, cash flow from investing activities showed a decrease of $2.4 million, not an increase of $6.4 million. Also, you refer to "work in progress" which is a term that refers to inventory, not property or equipment. In UNXLs case, there is no inventory as can be easily seen on the balance sheet. The reason why it has no inventory is because as of March 31, no products were manufactured for sale to a customer.

    As to your comment that R&D salaries are being capitalized instead of being expensed, you might want to give thought as to why the officers of the company and their certified public accountants would want to put themselves in legal jeopardy by including this statement in the SEC 10Q and 10K: "Research and development costs are expensed as incurred and include salaries and benefits, costs paid to third-party contractors for research, development and manufacturing of materials and devices, and a portion of facilities cost."

    You further said, "During the quarter the company records $5,000,000 non recurring engineering revenue with no cost of good sold against it"

    Cost of goods sold is only recognized as an expense when some tangible product is actually shipped and sold. The $5 million NRE was a milestone payment. In other words it was money received for achieving a goal, not for shipping a completed product.

    You concluded by saying, "In our opinion the Q1 2013 statements appear to be nothing less then a massive fraud that were contrived to give the appearance of a profitable entity with positive cash flow and a nice even $1,000,000 profit per quarter."

    Only certified public accountants have the legal authority to opine on a company's financial statements, and your opinion is starkly at odds with the expert conclusions reached by the certified public accountants for the company, PMB Helin Donovan, LLP of Houston, TX who said in part concerning the 2012 financial results, "We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Uni-Pixel, Inc……In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Uni-Pixel, Inc……. and the results of operations and its cash flows….."

    And in order to provide continuity from the audited statements of 2012 to the March 31, 2013 the 10Q for Unipixel said, "There have been no significant changes to our critical accounting policies and estimates during the three months ended March 31, 2013, as compared to the critical accounting policies and estimates disclosed “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, which was filed with the SEC on February 26, 2013."
    Jul 10, 2013. 12:28 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: UniBoss Looking To Be Another Failure For The Company [View article]
    This is really a tiresome retelling of the same old short thesis. Nothing new here, and its effect on the stock price will be short lived.
    Jul 2, 2013. 01:03 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Risk And Reward Of Uni-Pixel, Inc. - Tread Lightly [View article]

    Kodak, Intel, and Synaptics all have independently and publicly confirmed aspects of the UNXL story. But since they are associated with, and in Kodak's and INTC's case, have a vested interest in UNXL, by your standard of proof they should be disregarded. Another Fortune 100 company who invested $5 million in UNXL technology should also be disregarded because of its associated vested interest.
    Jul 1, 2013. 01:52 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Risk And Reward Of Uni-Pixel, Inc. - Tread Lightly [View article]
    FWIW, Maxsense is ATML's line of microcontrollers. Xsense is their line of touch sensors, which competes with with UNIBOSS sensors by UNXL. ATML is already commercially producing Xsense sensors, although not in large volumes yet, while UNXL has yet to accomplish this.

    PLNR may choose to compete one day, but for right now the competition in the non-ITO materials space. are the incumbent Asian ITO companies, who are making progress in developing their own metal mesh products, Fujifilm and Cambrios, who are far along in developing their silver nanowire products, and Flatfrog with its optical based sensor. The recently announced Kingsbury/Kodak partnership is scaling up to compete with its silver-halide sensor later this year.

    The alternative ITO touch sensor market is huge, growing, and segmented into many submarkets that different technologies will address. UNXL and ATML have nearly identical technologies, and both will carve out a profitable niche for themselves. UNXL, however, has a significant edge in that it has a much better cost structure per unit than ATML does.

    CIT/Carclo recently suffered a legal setback in its lawsuit against Unipixel, when it lost its motion to have its case heard in a Federal venue. As of this date, the company has made no new legal filings to advance its allegations any futher.

    The multitude of law firms trying to find credible lead plaintiffs in order to sue UNXL is common in the financial industry, rarely leads to even a settlement, and is peripheral to the UNXL story, in my opinion.
    Jul 1, 2013. 11:16 AM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Is The SEC Investigating? [View article]

    Your attempt to be an engineering expert in touch screen technology failed miserably a few weeks ago.

    Your attempt to be a legal expert in SEC matters is also failing today, as the market has assessed your inexpert claims and is buying up cheap stock in response.

    I await your attempt in a few weeks to prove accounting impropieties, and plan to comment on them in this and many other forums.

    You can check my profile to see whether I have bonafide qualifications to do so.
    Jun 21, 2013. 03:08 PM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment