pavlov

Cancer Stocks on the Go: Winners and Losers

Telling me about stocks after the fact don't do shit for me!!!

Dendreon: I Want the Truth

LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENNED TODAY!!!
A FAKE QUOTE SENT THE STOCK PLUMMETTING!


Fake article:


By DAN RICHMAN
P-I REPORTER

Seattle-based Dendreon Corp. on Thursday cut 15 percent of its 250-person workforce, idling about 40 staffers, most of whom were preparing to market the now-delayed anti-prostate cancer drug Provenge, said spokeswoman Monique Greer.

"Due to recent news from the Food and Drug Administration, we won't be commercializing Provenge immediately, as we had thought," Greer said. "All the employees, and the company, are very saddened by this decision, and very surprised. But the company has to do what it must to survive."

She said the FDA last week unexpectedly declined to approve Provenge, Dendreon's only product, without more data supporting the drug's effectiveness. Now, it will be released in 2009 at the earliest, she said.

"We hope these employees can stay in the area. Potentially, they could get rehired," though the layoffs are permanent, not temporary, she said.

If it comes to market, Provenge will be the only alternative to chemotherapy for men with advanced prostate cancer, according to Dendreon.

No further layoffs are planned, Greer said.

Dan Richman can be reached at 206-448-8032 or danrichman@seattlepi.c...


REAL ARTICLE:


Dendreon cuts 15 percent of staff

By Kirsten Orsini-Meinhard

Seattle Times business reporter

Seattle-based Dendreon on Thursday laid off 15 percent of its work force, or 40 people.

The layoffs, spread across all departments of the company, were effective immediately.

Dendreon is cutting employees to reduce its cash burn following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision last week to delay the release of its prostate cancer drug, said spokeswoman Monique Greer.

The company spent $33 million in the first quarter of this year. Greer said she isn't sure how much money the layoffs will save.

Employees were given severance packages, although Dendreon would not disclose any details.

The company is looking at further ways to reduce spending, Greer said.

Kirsten Orsini-Meinhard: 206-464-2391 or kmeinhard@seattletimes...

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

Dendreon: I Want the Truth

16MAY07
8:30 pm.

As above...I found my answer later last night.
I wrote this to you yesterday before I found the truth.


Fantastic article!
I'm not much into subscribing to newsletters but your insightful, reviting, and thought provoking article made me do it.
Now...for my 2 bits...
I was a broker for 12 years and the last 4 years I was a broker specializing in shorting.
Since I was based in Canada I was able to get away with a lot more than a US broker could.
I handled accounts for some hedge funds physically- based in the US but legally based in tha VVI's.
I ALWAYS had to check if the stock was available for shorting and was always told that it was a go.
When I started getting pressure from my compliance officer as to the legality of such, I called NASDAQ's law department and spoke to their senior lawyer who told me ( in writing) that the onus was on the US brokerage firm, which took the order, to deliver.
I and my firm were off the hook...
However...
there were times when we WERE bought in.
At which point does the trade become naked shorting?
I remember doing some trades where I would buy the convertible debenture and freely short the stock and this was not declared as a short position...legally.
Is it the same when dealing with options?
Your article seems to suggest that.
I certainly hope not!
I am not against shorting stocks.
I see it as a necessary function from keeping scams and manipulations within a limit...but there should also be a limit to the amount of shares you should be able to short of any given company.
I am currently short INSW and haven't been bought in despite the fact that there are no shares in the float. I imagine that I can continue to short it ( I'm not since it has become extremely obvious to me that it is being manipulated).
The option scenario though would allow be to buy calls to cover a never ending amount of shorting?
Please clarify for me if you can.
I DO look forward to reading your future articles since it is hard to find so much insight in such few words.

Not your brother but a new fan,

Dr. MEM (Pavlov)

Dendreon: I Want the Truth

Watch this...I found it last night and was flabbergasted!

www.businessjive.com/n...

Dendreon: The Short Story

Fantastic article!
I'm not much into subscribing to newsletters but your insightful, reviting, and thought provoking article made me do it.
Now...for my 2 bits...
I was a broker for 12 years and the last 4 years I was a broker specializing in shorting.
Since I was based in Canada I was able to get away with a lot more than a US broker could.
I handled accounts for some hedge funds physically- based in the US but legally based in tha VVI's.
I ALWAYS had to check if the stock was available for shorting and was always told that it was a go.
When I started getting pressure from my compliance officer as to the legality of such, I called NASDAQ's law department and spoke to their senior lawyer who told me ( in writing) that the onus was on the US brokerage firm, which took the order, to deliver.
I and my firm were off the hook...
However...
there were times when we WERE bought in.
At which point does the trade become naked shorting?
I remember doing some trades where I would buy the convertible debenture and freely short the stock and this was not declared as a short position...legally.
Is it the same when dealing with options?
Your article seems to suggest that.
I certainly hope not!
I am not against shorting stocks.
I see it as a necessary function from keeping scams and manipulations within a limit...but there should also be a limit to the amount of shares you should be able to short of any given company.
I am currently short INSW and haven't been bought in despite the fact that there are no shares in the float. I imagine that I can continue to short it ( I'm not since it has become extremely obvious to me that it is being manipulated).
The option scenario though would allow be to buy calls to cover a never ending amount of shorting?
Please clarify for me if you can.
I DO look forward to reading your future articles since it is hard to find so much insight in such few words.

Not your brother but a new fan,

Dr. MEM (Pavlov)