Thu, Apr 17, 2014, 7:05 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 2 hrs 25 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Insmed Incorporated Message Board

  • surestockholmes surestockholmes Jul 24, 2013 10:42 AM Flag

    fud

    Who determined the price of the last offering (dilution)????

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • foofighter4 wye yous stay wen every body think you a dope? Iss think you cud write for da N.Y.Post or the TMZ!. You feel bad cuz da bankers gets a good deal and yous sur prized? Sell dat stack and find ure new career! udderwise please shtthefkup cus
      yous stupid.

      • 1 Reply to yousstupid
      • Reply to fud by surestockholmes •Jul 24, 2013 10:42 AM
        yousstupid • Jul 24, 2013 12:12 PM Flag
        7users liked this postsusers disliked this posts1Reply
        foofighter4 wye yous stay wen every body think you a dope? Iss think you cud write for da N.Y.Post or the TMZ!. You feel bad cuz da bankers gets a good deal and yous sur prized? Sell dat stack and find ure new career! udderwise please shtthefkup cus
        yous stupid.

    • From the Hunton & Williams post -

      (v) resolutions of the Company's Board of Directors, adopted on May 23, 2013 and June 28, 2013,

      (vi) resolutions of the Pricing Committee of the Board of Directors adopted on July 16, 2013.

      My fear is that somebody at Insmed, who WE pay to act in our best interests, gave certain investors a guarantee in May that Insmed would issue shares in July based upon the then-current share price - irrespective of how low the manipulative shysters could manage to take the share price.

      If true - In one fell swoop that individual deliberately sabotaged what would otherwise have been a combination of events guaranteed to deliver shareholder value on a scale we're never likely to see again at Insmed.

      Without the private assurance of a bargain-basement share offering it would have been a suicidal strategy for anybody to trade against the momentum expected from those analyst price targets, the enforced accumulation of four or five million shares by the tracker funds, and the reluctance of shareholders anticipating substantial share price appreciation with Phase III success to sell at such a ridiculously low price.

      Without that intervention we would undoubtedly have seen a share price of well over $20 by the end of June. Did somebody at Insmed deliberately destroy that unprecedented shareholder value so that his institutional buddies could buy millions of shares for below $10?

      I suspect the enormity of the crime hasn't yet dawned upon the majority of the Longs.

      Instead of a single share offering around the end of this year for about $30, which would have enabled the institutions to buy about six million shares, we've instead allowed them to buy thirteen million shares - probably leaving so little unsatisfied demand that it's difficult to envisage where new demand will come from on a scale to outweigh the supply from investors looking to bank a swift 20% profit on their sub-$10 shares.

      Reasons to buy are academic in the absence of buyers.

    • The accurate and short answer is - the underwriters in concert with Insmed. It is standard practice. In this case Leerink Swann, Lazard and Cannacord. This has been standard practice since WS began business.

      Yes...I know I'm not fud (thank God), but she/he/it would write 8 paragraphs that are circular and confusing.

      • 2 Replies to satltsasw
      • What kills me is that they could`ve sold the shares directly to market in small increments instead of giving the shares away to sharks that just sell them for a profit in the market and then probably short the stock to be able to profit twice and then buy the original shares back after they cover their short. Insanity,but your right,standard practice.I want to be a shark on the inside,instead of being chum for these money grubbing thieves.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • That is what I thought, the same ones that put targets of :

        Leerink Swann ...... $ 22 issued on 5-22-13
        Lazard .................... $ 24 issued on 5-30-13
        Canacord ............... $ 18 issued on 7-4-13

        All before pIII release.

        But in concert with one another determined that an offering of $ 9.776 to them and to be released to the public at $10.40.

        % Difference to them (at 9.776) ...........% Difference to public
        Leer......... approx 77% ..............................75.1%
        Lazard......approx 84.23% .........................79%
        Cana........approx 59.22% .........................53.52%

        And they get an underwritting fee on top of an extreme discount and yes I understand those are probably 1 year targets. So to me it suggests INSM is undervalued by 53 to 84%

        Does that not arouse suspicion to anyone else?????????

        Am I the only one that sees a potential conflict of interest????????

 
INSM
12.53-0.04(-0.32%)Apr 16 4:00 PMEDT

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.
Schlumberger Limited
NYSEWed, Apr 16, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
Google Inc.
NasdaqGSWed, Apr 16, 2014 4:00 PM EDT