I as a speculator see this provost article as a positive. However I do believe, that our low price makes this, a daytraders dream as far as being able to move the stock.
Look at the avg volume on this short chart and the increase in numbers since 12-15-10
Nasdaq lists 45% institutional interest, it appears there was some institutional selling before dec31st last year possibly tax loss selling, Nasdaq numbers do not include mutual funds.
assuming the 14 million shares not in the float are amgens
insiders hold 15%
mutual funds another 8% roughly
That leaves 32% of the float (54mil shares)in the hands of retail investors or 17,280,000 shares give or take a few hundred thousand shares.
Of those how many can we assume are true longs or daytraders, or even hedge funds.Given the 90 day average of 600k share this stock can be easily manipulated with 1million dollars worth of stock, up or down.
On a side note deerfied has a position which is always a red flag (not to sound like bioman, but I do agree with him)
The only news from 12-15 to cause this is glaxo returning cancer drug and cytk decding to purse it. To me this is extremely overdone, but leads people to believe offering in the works. I will buy more today if i opens down.
For some reason, I missed the posts made here on 3-7-2011.
1. I agree with your comment about my use of the phrase "Wall Street." As you know, CYTK is a tiny little biotech that doesn't command any attention of note. Frankly, in this case, I just used the term as a short hand for whatever way the stock price goes.
2. With regard to your claim of manipulation to explain the vicious price decline, I can only say I don't know. I read these boards and regardless of the stock, people are quick to claim manipulation whenever their stock goes against them, I'm not saying this is what you are doing with CYTK. But I don't feel I am competent to draw actionable inferences from the data you presented. As an alternative explanation to your's, why isn't the Short Interest simply an indication that some investors believe that CYTK will have to do another financing before additional nondilutive funds are found? The point is I don't feel I have enough info to conclude whether the Short Interest is "manipulation" or something else, possibly more ominous to the longs. As a result, I try to stay away from such claims and prefer to focus on what I think are the fundamentals.)
3. You raise an interesting point regarding the possible connection between the success of the PFE drug and the selloff in CYTK since May. On the other hand, the Prohost Biotech guy on Seeking Alpha claims that the CYTK/AMGN plan announced on 2-9-2011 is positive for Omecantiv Mecarbil. Have you seen the Prohost article? Does it affect or change your point of view?
So what was your take on his presentation? Did you listen to it in its entirety. Since CYTK finished even on a horrible day in the market, I'm assuming the street viewed it as positive?? But who knows with how this stock trades.
Usually, you are quick to confront negative posters who have little to say from a substantive point of view. Any reason why, after being bullish on CYTK several months ago, you have adopted a contemptuous attitude toward CYTK? Is it just the CEO's style or something more fundamental?
Actually, Blum handled this one better than three weeks ago, referring less frequently to further studies. There was a fellow in the back with an Indian accent who asked for five year projections during the Q/A, Blum didn't crackup but he must be wondering in what world these "investors" live.