rmartin929's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/849030/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/706661/comments?source=feed#comment-7179181 7179181 http://bit.ly/M8ACOv]]> Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:24:05 -0400 http://bit.ly/M8ACOv]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/706661/comments?source=feed#comment-7179021 7179021 http://bit.ly/M8ACOv]]> Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:15:15 -0400 http://bit.ly/M8ACOv]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/260802/comments?source=feed#comment-1562258 1562258 Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:28:55 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/260802/comments?source=feed#comment-1558626 1558626
I was reviewing this trade and yes a more complex strategy than I am use to. Let's say the stock is trading at $10 near expiration. How is this trade unwound? If you could walk me through that would be helpful.]]> Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:13:38 -0400
I was reviewing this trade and yes a more complex strategy than I am use to. Let's say the stock is trading at $10 near expiration. How is this trade unwound? If you could walk me through that would be helpful.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/260132/comments?source=feed#comment-1550803 1550803
Thanks for correction on my assumptions. OK so 2,700 branded stores for $25M and that's where you get your $9,200 per store.

2010 rev. 214M * .29 (Hebei) = 62M / 2,700 = $23K ann. rev. per store

$23K / $9.2K (acq. cost per store) = 2.5 times annual sales. Actually more realistic than my prior estimate. 3 times sales is a rule of thumb, but that could be debated forever. But compares with other retail metrics (distributors much lower margins than Yonge very likely so valued like retailer)

And I don't know of any business that can legally or ethically just cut out the distributor/reseller, even in the wild, wild west of China.

I saw some post elsewhere (Chinese origin) about Yong with ads for sales people where they give you a car if you buy X amount of product/inventory. I'm betting this will be some sort of MLM deal. Where a large portion of sales come from recruiting new sales people (must buy inventory). They do sell to farmers/small stores,but are also encouraged/incented to recruit new sales people (these then become their down-level). This could go on for quite some time in a country the size of China, but this type of thing can sometimes implode or can actually be successful especially if the product has legs. This is more a theory from 1 post I read, but notice wording Q4 PR " to lower level distributors". Once they start talking about "lower level" distributors then you kind of wonder how many levels? I think time will prove this to be a MLM. Maybe one of the biggest ever!

However, they could still be successful based on size of China and wide distribution of farmers/villages. The big if in such a scenario is the quality of sales. Does the product make it to and is it accepted by the farmer or is it sales people selling to more sales people/stores?

I'm just guessing a little here and the rampant growth makes me think I'm on the right track.

I will not go into more detail because I am currently fantasizing about partnering with hedge funds, taking huge short positions, writing my brilliant hit piece and collecting the free cash! They say if you are not sure what your edge is when trading then you have no edge. I'm thinking about whole dam% blade!]]> Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:25:07 -0400
Thanks for correction on my assumptions. OK so 2,700 branded stores for $25M and that's where you get your $9,200 per store.

2010 rev. 214M * .29 (Hebei) = 62M / 2,700 = $23K ann. rev. per store

$23K / $9.2K (acq. cost per store) = 2.5 times annual sales. Actually more realistic than my prior estimate. 3 times sales is a rule of thumb, but that could be debated forever. But compares with other retail metrics (distributors much lower margins than Yonge very likely so valued like retailer)

And I don't know of any business that can legally or ethically just cut out the distributor/reseller, even in the wild, wild west of China.

I saw some post elsewhere (Chinese origin) about Yong with ads for sales people where they give you a car if you buy X amount of product/inventory. I'm betting this will be some sort of MLM deal. Where a large portion of sales come from recruiting new sales people (must buy inventory). They do sell to farmers/small stores,but are also encouraged/incented to recruit new sales people (these then become their down-level). This could go on for quite some time in a country the size of China, but this type of thing can sometimes implode or can actually be successful especially if the product has legs. This is more a theory from 1 post I read, but notice wording Q4 PR " to lower level distributors". Once they start talking about "lower level" distributors then you kind of wonder how many levels? I think time will prove this to be a MLM. Maybe one of the biggest ever!

However, they could still be successful based on size of China and wide distribution of farmers/villages. The big if in such a scenario is the quality of sales. Does the product make it to and is it accepted by the farmer or is it sales people selling to more sales people/stores?

I'm just guessing a little here and the rampant growth makes me think I'm on the right track.

I will not go into more detail because I am currently fantasizing about partnering with hedge funds, taking huge short positions, writing my brilliant hit piece and collecting the free cash! They say if you are not sure what your edge is when trading then you have no edge. I'm thinking about whole dam% blade!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/260132/comments?source=feed#comment-1550398 1550398
Also from 10Q - After the acquisition of the Hebei customer list in July 2010, the Company's margin on the sales made in Hebei province increased to 63% excluding these non-cash expenses
(overall margin for Q was 53%)

So it seems like they acquired at a good cost. Have increased sales and margins in the province because of purchase. And strategically removed a potentially far too powerful distributor from their channel (from prior article by Ian)

Seems to me like they did more than buy a list is all I am saying. There may have been a tad more thought involved than some have insinuated.

What about Amway / MLM structure? Has anyone really done any research on that angle?]]> Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:39:47 -0400
Also from 10Q - After the acquisition of the Hebei customer list in July 2010, the Company's margin on the sales made in Hebei province increased to 63% excluding these non-cash expenses
(overall margin for Q was 53%)

So it seems like they acquired at a good cost. Have increased sales and margins in the province because of purchase. And strategically removed a potentially far too powerful distributor from their channel (from prior article by Ian)

Seems to me like they did more than buy a list is all I am saying. There may have been a tad more thought involved than some have insinuated.

What about Amway / MLM structure? Has anyone really done any research on that angle?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/260132/comments?source=feed#comment-1550243 1550243
They did buy a list and disclosed it properly. But what is that list comprised of? Customers that have been obtained by their largest revenue producing distributor.

Now the "list business" is huge in every industry. Usually companies are buying lists of potential customers based on some sort of demographic or industry.

So are you telling me:

A. They bought this list of customers and they still sell product via this unknown Hebei provincial distributor? They bought a list, but nothing has changed in this distribution channel?

B. They bought this list and now sell directly to this customer/distributor list.

If it's A, then yeah they're pretty stupid and/or frauds. But you seem to know this stock very well. Maybe you missed this from the recent 10Q.

In addition, after the acquisition of the Hebei customer list, the Company is selling its products at a higher price directly to lower level distributors in Hebei, which is Yongye's largest regional market in China, representing 29% of sales in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Please revert to your posting on 10% customer names and 5% owners. These at least seem like educated beefs with the company. But I think the list thing, at face value, just seems like common FUD. Just trying to help you clean up your game.]]> Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:43:23 -0400
They did buy a list and disclosed it properly. But what is that list comprised of? Customers that have been obtained by their largest revenue producing distributor.

Now the "list business" is huge in every industry. Usually companies are buying lists of potential customers based on some sort of demographic or industry.

So are you telling me:

A. They bought this list of customers and they still sell product via this unknown Hebei provincial distributor? They bought a list, but nothing has changed in this distribution channel?

B. They bought this list and now sell directly to this customer/distributor list.

If it's A, then yeah they're pretty stupid and/or frauds. But you seem to know this stock very well. Maybe you missed this from the recent 10Q.

In addition, after the acquisition of the Hebei customer list, the Company is selling its products at a higher price directly to lower level distributors in Hebei, which is Yongye's largest regional market in China, representing 29% of sales in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Please revert to your posting on 10% customer names and 5% owners. These at least seem like educated beefs with the company. But I think the list thing, at face value, just seems like common FUD. Just trying to help you clean up your game.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/260132/comments?source=feed#comment-1549999 1549999
However, I do believe disclosure of this distributor (however and based on whatever) would be beneficial to determine if there are related party concerns.

Lastly, I have seen other comments about this business being structured like an Amway or similar MLM. Do new lower level sales people have to buy inventory and/or do they also try to recruit other new sales people? Does anyway have any ideas/evidence on this and if so what is the opinion of there sales structure? ]]> Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:28:44 -0400
However, I do believe disclosure of this distributor (however and based on whatever) would be beneficial to determine if there are related party concerns.

Lastly, I have seen other comments about this business being structured like an Amway or similar MLM. Do new lower level sales people have to buy inventory and/or do they also try to recruit other new sales people? Does anyway have any ideas/evidence on this and if so what is the opinion of there sales structure? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/257560/comments?source=feed#comment-1520033 1520033
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
gstone@saxenawhite.com
rrboyle@pomlaw.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
neil.rothstein@ksfcoun...
rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com
rrboyle@pomlaw.com
seidman@bernlieb.com
achen@aftlaw.com
howardsmith@howardsmit...

You can use this email if you like:

Dear Sirs,

I would much rather join a class action against Muddy Waters and/or Citron for their crimes. You know the law better than I, but you can use this info as a starting point -

seekingalpha.com/insta...

They have been using their lies and smear tactics for self serving profiteering for themselves and associated parties. They hurt both long and short stock holders. The longs that are current holders of CCME and the new shorts that trade on their "research" and are then left holding the bag as the conspirators exit their short positions profitably. Do some simple research on their trading patterns and claims that have been proven erroneous and/or fabricated. From a legal standpoint you would have plaintiffs hurt on all sides of the stock ownership.

* IT TAKES 5 MINUTES TO COPY PASTE LET'S BLITZ THESE GUYS WITH A MAILBOX FULL OF EMAILS
* I would blind copy the firms
* someone PLEASE post on Ihub

Something constructive to do on a down day in the market.]]> Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:43:07 -0500
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
gstone@saxenawhite.com
rrboyle@pomlaw.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
neil.rothstein@ksfcoun...
rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com
rrboyle@pomlaw.com
seidman@bernlieb.com
achen@aftlaw.com
howardsmith@howardsmit...

You can use this email if you like:

Dear Sirs,

I would much rather join a class action against Muddy Waters and/or Citron for their crimes. You know the law better than I, but you can use this info as a starting point -

seekingalpha.com/insta...

They have been using their lies and smear tactics for self serving profiteering for themselves and associated parties. They hurt both long and short stock holders. The longs that are current holders of CCME and the new shorts that trade on their "research" and are then left holding the bag as the conspirators exit their short positions profitably. Do some simple research on their trading patterns and claims that have been proven erroneous and/or fabricated. From a legal standpoint you would have plaintiffs hurt on all sides of the stock ownership.

* IT TAKES 5 MINUTES TO COPY PASTE LET'S BLITZ THESE GUYS WITH A MAILBOX FULL OF EMAILS
* I would blind copy the firms
* someone PLEASE post on Ihub

Something constructive to do on a down day in the market.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/256161/comments?source=feed#comment-1506920 1506920
You obviously have no experience in counter-intelligence. Have you ever studied counter-intelligence, or done some research on corporate espionage? You could learn something ... yada yada yada.

You've lost the last thread of credibility I ascribed to you with your response regarding Global Hunter's on the street research: BEA wrote: "pretty much the whole report is erroneous"

You didn't read the directions. Were you good at taking tests in school? Disprove one (1) fact in the report. I know, I know you could disprove them all, even their phone number and office address, but stick to the content of the report. Just one fact. I know you are busy providing wisdom to the masses, but take some time to help me out.

(I used site vs. cite in a post - I don't strive for good grammar here, but the correct word would have been nice) ]]> Fri, 04 Mar 2011 14:29:44 -0500
You obviously have no experience in counter-intelligence. Have you ever studied counter-intelligence, or done some research on corporate espionage? You could learn something ... yada yada yada.

You've lost the last thread of credibility I ascribed to you with your response regarding Global Hunter's on the street research: BEA wrote: "pretty much the whole report is erroneous"

You didn't read the directions. Were you good at taking tests in school? Disprove one (1) fact in the report. I know, I know you could disprove them all, even their phone number and office address, but stick to the content of the report. Just one fact. I know you are busy providing wisdom to the masses, but take some time to help me out.

(I used site vs. cite in a post - I don't strive for good grammar here, but the correct word would have been nice) ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/256161/comments?source=feed#comment-1505224 1505224
As expected you did nothing to discredit the report except the norm, ask other questions, bring up other unrelated issues, yada, yada, yada - you could go on for days :)

You see, you are annoying. Don't tell me what they isn't there, don't tell me about CFOs at some conference, don't tell me about your public service hero MW, don't tell me the boogey man could be real ... no, no is certainly real, pick the facts apart. Prove them wrong BEA? Give me one customer name ... you know that line right? (Yonge) Just one fact BEA. Then you will be worth one more post.

Tell me what facts in the report are erroneous. That's all just one.

You know I have picked up a factoid from you - and did some research based on it - Yonge SEC large customer disclosure. But of the 100's of posts you make that's all I can site. OH and something about DSPS - stock this writer touted - good info. OK that's 2. I'm sure there are more jewels awaiting me one day.

And it saddens me to see you are obviously (no certainly for sure) paid by MW and/or their affiliates for your work here and every other board I've recently visited. I guess that was obvious. Those guys are really scum, but smart and have found a good way to make a quick buck and I hope you are paid well because you are skilled with FUD. They just leave a lot of hurt in their wake so you might consider another profession. Me, I'm just bobbing and weaving around the carnage. ]]> Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:26:07 -0500
As expected you did nothing to discredit the report except the norm, ask other questions, bring up other unrelated issues, yada, yada, yada - you could go on for days :)

You see, you are annoying. Don't tell me what they isn't there, don't tell me about CFOs at some conference, don't tell me about your public service hero MW, don't tell me the boogey man could be real ... no, no is certainly real, pick the facts apart. Prove them wrong BEA? Give me one customer name ... you know that line right? (Yonge) Just one fact BEA. Then you will be worth one more post.

Tell me what facts in the report are erroneous. That's all just one.

You know I have picked up a factoid from you - and did some research based on it - Yonge SEC large customer disclosure. But of the 100's of posts you make that's all I can site. OH and something about DSPS - stock this writer touted - good info. OK that's 2. I'm sure there are more jewels awaiting me one day.

And it saddens me to see you are obviously (no certainly for sure) paid by MW and/or their affiliates for your work here and every other board I've recently visited. I guess that was obvious. Those guys are really scum, but smart and have found a good way to make a quick buck and I hope you are paid well because you are skilled with FUD. They just leave a lot of hurt in their wake so you might consider another profession. Me, I'm just bobbing and weaving around the carnage. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/256161/comments?source=feed#comment-1505188 1505188
rmartin929]]> Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:01:59 -0500
rmartin929]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/256161/comments?source=feed#comment-1504835 1504835
Have a go at this and tell me what is fraudulent in this Global Hunter report: ghsecurities.bluematri...

Just the report.

Stay focused on the report, but tell me if you think they loaded up on calls and sold puts before publishing? MW is not a research firm - they are a trading website at best. Does MW do what they do as a public service? What is their source of income? Follow the $$$ BEA. No they pre-trade their articles. Their trading patterns are easily seen in the days before any published article. And they readily admit they take positions - and we all know short. It is so much easier to drive down a small cap with retail ownership than to tout one.

Remember, focus on the report itself and if you can pick it apart I'll stop selling puts to the MW bagholders - that's what they are now as the perps have left the playing field.]]> Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:31:00 -0500
Have a go at this and tell me what is fraudulent in this Global Hunter report: ghsecurities.bluematri...

Just the report.

Stay focused on the report, but tell me if you think they loaded up on calls and sold puts before publishing? MW is not a research firm - they are a trading website at best. Does MW do what they do as a public service? What is their source of income? Follow the $$$ BEA. No they pre-trade their articles. Their trading patterns are easily seen in the days before any published article. And they readily admit they take positions - and we all know short. It is so much easier to drive down a small cap with retail ownership than to tout one.

Remember, focus on the report itself and if you can pick it apart I'll stop selling puts to the MW bagholders - that's what they are now as the perps have left the playing field.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/256119/comments?source=feed#comment-1503463 1503463
I believe strongly in the direct customer and vendor research done by Global Hunter

ghsecurities.bluematri...

So my long theory is based on 99% not a fraud of any significant nature, with the caveat that their could be minor issues. Trading strategy is therefore based on long term value regardless of near term volatility (actually the volatility creates some nice long term trading strategies)]]> Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:44:06 -0500
I believe strongly in the direct customer and vendor research done by Global Hunter

ghsecurities.bluematri...

So my long theory is based on 99% not a fraud of any significant nature, with the caveat that their could be minor issues. Trading strategy is therefore based on long term value regardless of near term volatility (actually the volatility creates some nice long term trading strategies)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/255369/comments?source=feed#comment-1496970 1496970 2010 2009
Customer A 29,004,998 30% Customer A 20,541,267 43%
Customer B 18,534,320 19% Customer D 6,886,624 14%
Customer C 16,745,156 17% Customer F 6,291,070 13%
Customer D 9,950,840 10% Customer B 5,663,011 12%
Customer E 6,038,692 6% Customer G 4,727,842 10%
Total 80,274,006 82% Total 44,109,814 92%

2010 sales added 3 major distributors: B,C, & E

Highly concentrated customer base,

Read a little on Reg S-K Item 101
"The dependence of the segment upon a single customer, or a few customers, the loss of any one or more of which would have a material adverse effect on the segment. The name of any customer and its relationship, if any, with the registrant or its subsidiaries shall be disclosed if sales to the customer by one or more segments are made in an aggregate amount equal to 10 percent or more of the registrant's consolidated revenues and the loss of such customer would have a material adverse effect on the registrant and its subsidiaries taken as a whole."

I must admit you have a point here. In 10K they obviously document the concentration of sales, but do not clearly ID customers nor relationship (if any).

However, in regard SFAS: SFAS No. 131

now requires issuers to disclose the amount of revenues from each external customer that amounts to 10 percent or more of an enterprise’s revenue as well as the identity of the segment(s) reporting the revenues. The accounting standards, however, have never required issuers to identify major customers.

To me it looks like an auditor could sign off based on SFAS. Accounting standards, but you are correct in that it does not address the S-K regulations.

I assume the company has not responded to this.

If they just named their top 3 that would be 66% of sales.

Not invested yet, but my gut tells me they just don't want to list their customers for the reason no company wants to disclose that - competition. It's also a culturally secretive society - I know that doesn't fly for a US listed stock.



]]> Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:48:41 -0500 2010 2009
Customer A 29,004,998 30% Customer A 20,541,267 43%
Customer B 18,534,320 19% Customer D 6,886,624 14%
Customer C 16,745,156 17% Customer F 6,291,070 13%
Customer D 9,950,840 10% Customer B 5,663,011 12%
Customer E 6,038,692 6% Customer G 4,727,842 10%
Total 80,274,006 82% Total 44,109,814 92%

2010 sales added 3 major distributors: B,C, & E

Highly concentrated customer base,

Read a little on Reg S-K Item 101
"The dependence of the segment upon a single customer, or a few customers, the loss of any one or more of which would have a material adverse effect on the segment. The name of any customer and its relationship, if any, with the registrant or its subsidiaries shall be disclosed if sales to the customer by one or more segments are made in an aggregate amount equal to 10 percent or more of the registrant's consolidated revenues and the loss of such customer would have a material adverse effect on the registrant and its subsidiaries taken as a whole."

I must admit you have a point here. In 10K they obviously document the concentration of sales, but do not clearly ID customers nor relationship (if any).

However, in regard SFAS: SFAS No. 131

now requires issuers to disclose the amount of revenues from each external customer that amounts to 10 percent or more of an enterprise’s revenue as well as the identity of the segment(s) reporting the revenues. The accounting standards, however, have never required issuers to identify major customers.

To me it looks like an auditor could sign off based on SFAS. Accounting standards, but you are correct in that it does not address the S-K regulations.

I assume the company has not responded to this.

If they just named their top 3 that would be 66% of sales.

Not invested yet, but my gut tells me they just don't want to list their customers for the reason no company wants to disclose that - competition. It's also a culturally secretive society - I know that doesn't fly for a US listed stock.



]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/255369/comments?source=feed#comment-1496749 1496749 Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:25:00 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/255369/comments?source=feed#comment-1496447 1496447 www.springerlink.com/c.../

It's likely not nonotech high-tech, biotech, fertilizer, but the farmers seem to like it. And we're talking about a country where bear gall bladders are fairly popular as an aphrodisiac.

And the distribution has been addressed by the co. and a number of authors. Sell to distributors, that sell to small stores (many are tiny family owned).

Anyway, the shorts have retreated to FUD with questions noone is going to answer (as with other stocks). Give me the names and addresses of your customers. What business does that as std. practice? Obviously, most of them have made a bunch on these bear raids, but now I think some of the more "unstable" authors are either trying to make a name for themselves or just are so determined to be right that they defend and attack with vim.

I actually appreciate their efforts as I am now skimming through the carnage to determine the best buys. And while I'm not overly excited about fertilizer the valuation and growth here is very compelling.

OH!!! And I suggest per above comment by BEA that everyone do some research on:

1. The number of times that someone claimed a particular commodity product would work in some way that IT DIDN"T. ("I will give him a hint - there have been many times." INSANE :))
2. The number of times that someone claimed a product will work in some way and IT DID.

* someone can be anyone for this study: company, girllfriend, barber. I want it to be comprehensive
* when including "someone" in your study results please provide their name, address, phone and email

Please do your research and get back to me with your results. I will tabulate the answers and write my 1st SA article. Will which be titled " Product Claims That Did and Didn't"

I am also hoping to do a blockbuster article on "Weather Forecasts That Did and Didn't"

Kinda like a "How to for Dummies" book series. I think it will pretty good.
]]> Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:18:07 -0500 www.springerlink.com/c.../

It's likely not nonotech high-tech, biotech, fertilizer, but the farmers seem to like it. And we're talking about a country where bear gall bladders are fairly popular as an aphrodisiac.

And the distribution has been addressed by the co. and a number of authors. Sell to distributors, that sell to small stores (many are tiny family owned).

Anyway, the shorts have retreated to FUD with questions noone is going to answer (as with other stocks). Give me the names and addresses of your customers. What business does that as std. practice? Obviously, most of them have made a bunch on these bear raids, but now I think some of the more "unstable" authors are either trying to make a name for themselves or just are so determined to be right that they defend and attack with vim.

I actually appreciate their efforts as I am now skimming through the carnage to determine the best buys. And while I'm not overly excited about fertilizer the valuation and growth here is very compelling.

OH!!! And I suggest per above comment by BEA that everyone do some research on:

1. The number of times that someone claimed a particular commodity product would work in some way that IT DIDN"T. ("I will give him a hint - there have been many times." INSANE :))
2. The number of times that someone claimed a product will work in some way and IT DID.

* someone can be anyone for this study: company, girllfriend, barber. I want it to be comprehensive
* when including "someone" in your study results please provide their name, address, phone and email

Please do your research and get back to me with your results. I will tabulate the answers and write my 1st SA article. Will which be titled " Product Claims That Did and Didn't"

I am also hoping to do a blockbuster article on "Weather Forecasts That Did and Didn't"

Kinda like a "How to for Dummies" book series. I think it will pretty good.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/583323-business-economics-analyst/103165-yongye-international-yong-is-their-story-too-good-to-be-true?source=feed#comment-1493327 1493327
*** I know you will argue every single point. So yes "You say you value your time, but yet you are posting here???" Thought I'd save you the time for your response. ]]> Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:07:48 -0500
*** I know you will argue every single point. So yes "You say you value your time, but yet you are posting here???" Thought I'd save you the time for your response. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/253789/comments?source=feed#comment-1480820 1480820 Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:34:31 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/253789/comments?source=feed#comment-1480801 1480801 Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:25:05 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/253789/comments?source=feed#comment-1480702 1480702
Maybe buy the $5 puts and where to position the call $10 or $12.50. Like to see your thoughts. ]]> Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:27:21 -0500
Maybe buy the $5 puts and where to position the call $10 or $12.50. Like to see your thoughts. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/251267/comments?source=feed#comment-1458868 1458868
It appears to me that not all drugs up for approval use the AdCom.]]> Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:27:24 -0500
It appears to me that not all drugs up for approval use the AdCom.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/236848/comments?source=feed#comment-1454470 1454470 appft1.uspto.gov/netac...

Method of use app. It's my understanding these are easier to get around than a patent based on the drug composition.]]> Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:05:41 -0500 appft1.uspto.gov/netac...

Method of use app. It's my understanding these are easier to get around than a patent based on the drug composition.]]>