Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 10:07 AM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 5 hrs 53 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Insmed Incorporated Message Board

  • fudfighter4 fudfighter4 Nov 19, 2012 6:09 PM Flag

    Could the share price hit $500 this time next year?

    Does anybody here think that's possible?

    I'm not confident of getting any constructive responses - but I'm absolutely certain I'll not get a single response from anybody who can offer a reasonable argument for why that could not happen.

    For those here who have only ever used the INSM board, people who make ridiculous suggestions about share price movement in these forums are almost invariably promptly shot down by more knowledgeable posters. I suspect that the most compelling opposition I'm likely to get in this instance is the argument favoured by hubby - "Your suggestion is ridiculous because it's ridiculous".

    We've had setbacks before, and nobody here will be unaware of the possibility that we'll encounter another bump in the road. But don't make the mistake of using past share price levels as the basis for share price projections in a 'best case' scenario.

    Clean data from the dog toxicity study and compelling proof of efficacy from the EU CF clinical trial would put the Company into a position unprecedented in its history. Even the approval of iPlex in December 2005 was overshadowed by the threat of the patent infringement law suit which did indeed eventually result in iPlex being taken off the shelves. But even early on in 2006, in the wake of initial FDA approval, the high in the market cap was still less than $200 million - the equivalent today of $6.42 a share.

    In June 2009, in anticipation of good data from the iPlex MMD Phase II study, the high in the market cap was around $330 million - the equivalent today of $9.63 a share. Don't overlook the "Phase II" bit. Although the Company did have around $120 million in cash by then, there was very little visibility regarding a route to the generation of a significant revenue stream.

    These previous peaks in market valuation are not entirely without relevance to the current situation. But I sense that many here are allowing their expectations to be managed unduly by past share price movement. An unprecedented outlook is likely to be accompanied by an unprecedented scale of share price appreciation.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Satltsasw - it seems to me that your entire argument hinges upon the following assumption -

      "Zero sales...the regulatory path between here and commercial sales is longer than a year. No regulatory approval, no sales."

      However, -

      Al Altomari was appointed to the Board on August 6 this year. Presumably his appointment was only the culmination of a significant period of courtship.

      Will Lewis was appointed as CEO on September 11. The PR included the following information -

      "Will has worked closely with the Insmed Board and management team as an advisor to the Company during the past several months ..."

      Kindly explain why you are certain that the Company's decision, presumably somewhere around the middle of 2012, to bring on board the expertise of guys like Altomari and Lewis was in preparation for the launch of Arikace in Europe somewhere around the middle of 2014?

      Kindly explain why you are dismissing the possibility that Arikace could be the beneficiary of an "expedited development and review" under the provisions of S.3187 - which by an odd coincidence was signed into law in July this year, not long after the Company postponed the US CF clinical trial and started talking to people like Altomari and Lewis.

    • Possible, yes. Probable, no.

      My take is that most of the responses are based on the probability, as the SP potential is infinite. GLTAL.

    • I'm going to say no, because, IMO, if all of the stars aligned as required to hit $500/share, then INSM would be taken over before the price appreciated to that level. Call it an arbitrage argument.

      Thanks for your posts.

      Sentiment: Buy

    • Btw...when iplex was approved for short stature there was ZERO mention of patent issues. It is patently (get it, patently) false for you to say "the approval of iPlex in December 2005 was overshadowed by the threat of the patent infringement law suit" because when iplex was approved it was NOT overshadowed by the threat of the lawsuit. That threat was never broached on these boards and Allan never mentioned it. They went out and hired nine sales managers in the next 2 months or so. The lawsuit took everyone on these boards by surprise. And if I recall correctly you weren't here back then...at least not as fud. Maybe as readthisnow...but not as fud.

      As to your assertion that no one will offer a reasonable argument that $500/sh is not attainable...I did in my prior post. Please attempt to refute it without resorting to name calling and baseless attacks since that is your only mode of rebuttal these days.

      Now...if INSM does hit $500/sh in a year it will be a nice surprise.

      • 1 Reply to satltsasw
      • Seems that I'm a good judge of character. For anybody here sufficiently dumb to be taken in by your pathetic attempt to cover yourself, here's something you are SURELY not sufficiently arrogant to try to "explain".

        Re your -

        "when iplex was approved for short stature there was ZERO mention of patent issues. It is patently (get it, patently) false for you to say "the approval of iPlex in December 2005 was overshadowed by the threat of the patent infringement law suit" because when iplex was approved it was NOT overshadowed by the threat of the lawsuit. That threat was never broached on these boards and Allan never mentioned it."

        - the FDA approved iPlex in December 2005.

        From the 2004 Annual Report -

        In this regard, we note that on December 20, 2004, Tercica, Inc. and Genentech Inc. filed a complaint against Avecia Limited and Insmed, Inc. in the United Kingdom at the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court alleging infringement of EP patent No. 571,417 ("the 417 patent"). The '417 patent has claims directed to particular uses of a combination of IGFBP-3 and IGF-I. In the complaint, Tercica, Inc. asked the court for an injunction to restrain allegedly infringing activity, for a declaration that the '417 patent is valid and infringed, for an order requiring the delivery or destruction of allegedly infringing articles and materials and for an inquiry into possible economic damages.

        On February 11, 2005, Avecia and Insmed filed a Defense and Counterclaim to Tercica Inc.'s suit. In its Defense, Avecia and Insmed asserted, among other things, that the '417 patent is invalid and that the Claimant failed to properly register its license. In its Counterclaim, Avecia and Insmed also asked the court to revoke the '417 patent.

        Insmed cannot predict with certainty the outcome of this proceeding. We note, however, that an adverse ruling could impact our ability to make, use or sell our products and would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        In addition, Tercica, Inc. filed, on December 23, 2004, a complaint against Insmed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of U.S. patent Nos. 5,187,151 and 6,331,414. These patents are directed to certain methods of using IGF-I/IGFBP-3 and methods of producing human IGF-I, respectively. On February 16, 2005, Tercica, Inc. and Genentech, Inc. filed an Amended Complaint, adding allegations of infringement of U.S. patent No. 5,258,287 ("the '287 patent"). The claims of the '287 patent are directed to DNA encoding BP53 (i.e. IGFBP-3) and recombinant constructs, transformed host cells and methods for using same.

        On February 18, 2005, Insmed filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. In the motion, Insmed asserted that all alleged activities fall within the statutory safe-harbor provided by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), commonly called the clinical trial exemption. This exemption prevents patent infringement actions from being filed against activities reasonably related to obtaining FDA approval of a product, such as when the product is still being tested in clinical trials. Insmed further asserted, among other things, that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for the requested relief, have not sued the proper party, have failed to name all the proper plaintiffs and have failed to establish the existence of a sufficiently real and substantial controversy between the parties. Insmed requested immediate dismissal or Summary Judgment against the plaintiff's allegation on these grounds.

        Insmed cannot predict with certainty the outcome of this proceeding. We note, however, that an adverse ruling could impact our ability to make, use or sell our products and would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

    • haha...you're killing me!!!!! That would be a $15,000,000,000 market cap on ZERO sales and ZERO large manufacturing capability and ZERO sales force and ZERO infrastructure to support such an operation, essentially ZERO regulatory staffing, ZERO inside sales staff, ZERO overseas offices, ZERO audits of manufacturing facilities for compliance, ZERO policies and procedures to run such an operation, little to no production staff, very little of everything. And you ask such a silly question???

      Fifteen Billion Dollars...that's a lot of scratch.

      Yes, the future looks good...but...you are just too funny to take seriously.

      How's that for constructive?

      • 1 Reply to satltsasw
      • Before I give you my verdict on your response I'll need to know a tad more about how carefully you've assessed the situation.

        Bearing in mind that I clearly advanced a "best case" scenario, kindly explain why you are so certain that this time next year -

        1. the Company will have zero sales.

        2. the Company will not have access to a large manufacturing facility.

        3. the Company will have zero sales force.

        4. the Company will have zero infrastructure.

        5. the Company will have zero of all of the other capabilities you listed.

        I guess this is the bit where we get to find out if you're a windbag.

    • Nope

    • Fud, I am tempted to say no way........however, two weeks ago I said there was no way that Alabama would lose and this weekend I said there was no way that Kansas State and Oregon would lose their football games.

      If we have a big move, I will sell most of my shares at $180.00 (my target price for a long time.....LOL) but I will keep approximately 20% to see if it goes to $500

 
INSM
17.61+0.11(+0.63%)10:05 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.