LatticeInExiIe wrote: If you don't like SA articles, then why were you the first to ask for for the address, aggressively search a twitter account to retrieve it, and more importantly why did you even bother to read it?
And I am curious why you found it necessary to slam the author on thie bullboard within five minutes of reading the article. If it was nonsense, why even bother? And I suppose everyone had six followers at one point in their life. How many do you have?
The FDA doesn't use patient sites to establish efficacy; the studies that show it is as effective as placebo were blind clinical studies. More concerning for the longs is that the Jesus of the FDA (who prepared the slides and singles out Donnatal specifically) appears to be going after drugs with phenobarbital. Concordia was to submit new supplemental data (clinical trials) by the deadline according to the FDA's letters to their attorney. Its amazing that you would not take letters written to Concordia from the FDA seriously. Did Concordia?
Do you realize that Donnatal represents 9% of Concordia's revenues? Do you know that they paid for this drug? They are still paying interest on that drug so if it is pulled, all of a sudden the acquisition cost becomes "real accounting" on their balance sheet and they get the added kick of paying interest on it. Donnatal has been gone from Canada for the last six years (it no longer has a DIN so it can not be presribed) and has been replaced with newer treatments. Are you not even curious as to why it was discontinued here?
As far as your comment that no analysts have recognized this as a risk, that is incorrect. Douglas Meihm of RBCCM cites the drug's DESI status as the
number one Target Risk on each and every Equity Update he prepares. He also acknowledges its current DESI satus and that it is approved for safety but does not have FDA approval for efficacy.
And for the record, I think the spelling of "Capitolist Pig" that way was intentional by the author (I spelled it incorrectly in the subject header)
If you are surprised buy the lack of substance of the short thesis, then you must really be surprised at the share price and that the stock set a new 52 week low this week. There is nothing desperate about this article. It presents information that is available on the public domain and a risk to Concordia's revenue stream. If you were to ask me, your rebut sounded desperate.
Good evening, and good luck.
TOMMY1 wrote: Hi Lattice, I was discrediting the author and explaining my reasoning. SA articles are generally not very credit worthy at all. I just found it very hard to take this article seriously. I think it is great that everyone shares information for us all to read so that we can make our own minds up about this stock and I simply said my piece (or peace as the Pig would say).
Okay, let’s humour this Pig (who, at the very least can spell "pig" correctly). This is a speculative article with the short thesis that Donnatal may be pulled without warning due to FDA action.
“The FDA does not likely believe that the product has proven itself to be effective in any clinical trials”
The active ingredients in Donnatal have been shown to be more effective than placebo in treating moderately severe symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. Patients using this drug confirm this with positive online reviews:
I just find this short thesis really hard to believe as I am aware the shorts will continue to chip away until the Q2 results are released in a couple of weeks. Each to their own when it comes to investment strategies and I don't judge. I just think an article like this highlights the desperation of shorts as the big day of August 12th fast approaches and it makes me feel more at ease with my long position. If there was some decent negative news about CRX the shorts could get their teeth into, we would hear about it right away, then again, and again and again....until it becomes old news....at which point it would probably be brought to the surface again to counter any postive news. Same goes for the pumpers with positive news on CRX.
We can agree to disagree with regards to the credibility of this article and the selective letters used to support the short thesis.
Oh, and this author can’t even spell Valeant correctly (they spelt it Valiant), so you could say it was a valiant attempt by the "Capitolist Pig" to scare retail investors into selling!
LatticeInExiIe wrote: TOMMY: So... let me get this right. The basis of you disqualifing the contents of this article is that the author only has six followers? Is there anything in the actual contents of the article that you wish to comment on other than your statement that if Donntal was really in danger, big analysts would have been all over it? What about the letters from Concordia's lawyers and the response from the FDA? Care to comment, or just slam the author as not being influential?