Though Usec can turn around, it will be highly difficult; the market for low enriched Uranium is facing competitive pressure from the growing solar industry as well.

The appraisal was done quite similar to InterMune (ITMN) based on a new school of thoughts called "comparative market analysis," which is commonly used by realtors to appraise houses. For instance, the value of a house in a particular neighborhood should be priced similar to adjacent houses given than they have with similar sizes, room, acreage,and etc. I believe that CMA is more accurate for developmental biotech b/c the company has not generate revenues.

@Michele Grant. Thank you for your wise comment. We appraised InterMune at the minimum PO of $68 when the market price of the stock was at roughy $10 per share. Interestingly, there are some analysts who still believe InterMune is worth only $35 even after it was bought out by Roche for $74; and we employed the same valuation for both InterMune and MannKind.

"We will see about Afrezza, however there is strong evidence to support that there is a relationship with glargine." -- Again, the relationship here, as proven by the Golds standard ORIGIN trials is CORRELATION rather than CAUSAL, and INSULIN DO NOT cause cancer. Docs are NOT hearing their patients saying that insulin causes cancer. Unfortunately, we tend to hear such bias opinions from WS financiers who are either ignorant of medicine/statistics and/or have conflict of interests.

@Moon Kil Woong Again, I do not know your level of understanding in medicine or biostatistic, but based on your responses I strongly believe that you might benefits from reading up on basic biostatistic principles of "causation, correlation, and confounder." (Moon: "I would assume drug approval agencies like the FDA will tend to agree and require more trials). --The FDA requires all drugs to undergoes phase 4 or surveillance study so that does not mean insulin is not safe.

@Moon Kil Woong I am not sure why the spacing on the article appeared messed up but I already send the info for the editor to fix. I am not sure where your understanding and knowledge of biostatistic and trial data investigation is so I am going to ask you several question to facilitate this discussion. What type of study is it? What info can we infer and conclude from such a study? What are the previous studies done on this topic? How reliable are these studies? Have you read the ORIGIN trial or the paper I presented in and comprehend it? I can tell you off the bat that the study mentioned looking at insurance databases, in the eyes of the seasoned clinical trial investigator, is not the gold standard. Docs would not make recommendation base on such a study. Information looking at the insurance data will NOT be able to establish CAUSAL but CORRELATION at best. If you pay careful attention to what you wrote: ""On June 26, 2009, Diabetologia published the results of four large-scale registry studies from Sweden, Germany, Scotland and the rest of the UK. The German study, of around 127,000 insulin-treated patients from an insurance database, suggested a possible link between insulin glargine and increased risk of developing cancer." -The key is the word LINK... which indicate correlation and not causal! Just like what I wrote in the article that back then people used to believed that coffee causes cancer, as there was a link between coffee drinkers and cancer. Now we all know that the link or correlation is "smoking" from the Harvard Medical School studying, which proved that coffee drinkers also tend to smoke. Smoking is the confounders that underlies the correlation in that case. Pertaining to the ORIGIN trials, this is a gold standard, international, randomized clinical trial, and quite large (high power) to establish there is NO causal relationship between insulin and cancer. The ORIGIN trial has proper randomization to allow investigators to clearly establish meaningful conclusion regarding causal relationship. You can call Sanofi's CMO and he'll be happy to talk to you further regarding the myopic notion that insulin causes cancer. As an MD and a member of the medical community, our responsibility is to inform the truth rather than spreading bias fear that insulin causing cancer, as ignorant can be even more damaging the cancer per se. I see that you're on the corporate side and you might not have the proper understanding of biostatistic or medicine properly analyze the data. Per your response, "I doubt those getting cancer taking these drugs care that much if its a corollary or casual one but that it increased their risk with may have resulted in their getting cancer." - I haven't heard of a single patients stating that insulin causes cancer. If anything, they've been saying insulin saved their life. It is rather the corporate/profits driven folks who have been spreading such lies... even in the face of clinical data.

There's several questions you should ask? What type of study is it? I can tell you off the bat that study looking at insurance databases, in the eyes of the seasoned clinical trial investigator, is not the gold standard. Information looking at the insurance data will NOT be able to establish CAUSAL but CORRELATION. The ORIGIN trials is randomized, global, and quite large (higher power) and it established there is NO causal relationship. As an MD and a member of the medical community, our responsibility is to inform the truth rather than spreading bias fear that insulin causing cancer, as ignorant can be even more damaging the cancer per se.