SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical
Sepracor-Looks very promising
An SI Board Since August 1996
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
10280 115 0 SEPR
Emcee:  rkrw Type:  Unmoderated
Introduction Market Data Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
8980"(Question: Which level was 44 and which 40 in Q2? I think stocking was 44)Rocky9-10/26/2005
8979Sepracor "underweight" Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:05:55 AM ET PrudIcebrg-10/26/2005
8978I have recrunched the numbers and it would appear to me there was destocking in Robohogs-10/26/2005
8977...<Revenue is $152 MM in my model> I had my somewhat conservation run rakenhott-10/26/2005
8976Welcome to my neck of the woods (HK). I just got finished perusing the SSB repoRobohogs-10/26/2005
8975Jon, been a long time. What a terrific anaysis of the numbers. Better and moreVector1-10/26/2005
8974The imovane dosing was 7.5 mg to be clear (which is equivalent to ~4 mg (from whRobohogs-10/26/2005
8973I noticed that too. For SEPR, the efficacy issues seem to have gone away with tRobohogs-10/26/2005
8972Re: goosing the trial: Thanks for pointing that out -- great stuff, especially FiloF-10/25/2005
8971>>>By the way, NBIX was bragging about a trial in driving versus imovanrkrw-10/25/2005
8970The slide actually showed $40 MM of one and $44 of the other (one being end-userRobohogs-10/25/2005
8969Duplicate Rocky9-10/25/2005
8968I think the 44.5 residual number is not good. It was backed out by several analRocky9-10/25/2005
8967FWIW. Q2 Supply, (maybe, largely Sepr motivated), 84m. Residual 44.5m. Acbiopuzzle-10/25/2005
8966Comparison of Q2 and Q3, with Q4 guidance: <pre> Q2 Q3 Rocky9-10/25/2005
8965<i>could 'equivalent'sales for Q3 be considered 145m without carryBiomaven-10/25/2005
8964Did cc state 44.5m carryover (stocking) into Q3? If so, could 'equivalentbiopuzzle-10/25/2005
8963Sepr did pretty good. Ads 6 per night X 90 days = 540 ads per quarter at a prettdavid nordic-10/25/2005
8962Outdated since it preceded the CC, but this is Merrill's take: SEPR; $54.42tom pope-10/25/2005
8961One of the analysts got really pissy with management at the end of the call (2ndRobohogs-10/25/2005
8960They guided to 320 MM for L for year - implies 135 MM in Q4. Predicting BE in QRobohogs-10/25/2005
8959Pru out calling results on rev side "curiously strong" and blaming it Robohogs-10/25/2005
8958Add GS to the take: 3Q05 exceeds our view, with a smaller than expected loss anquidditch-10/25/2005
8957I am trying to do some work to see what result may be later today (if gains willRobohogs-10/25/2005
8956Comparison of Q2 and Q3 <pre> Q2 Q3 Lunesta 83.5 Robohogs-10/25/2005
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News