I sent an email the other day as I was concerned with Wedbush and their new $7 target. How did they get that number? What would my reply be...if any. I felt I most likely would not hear anything back as I was sure they were flooded with "comment".
Anyway, here it is......
"While it is disappointing to have an analyst who was previously positive on the Company, reverse his position based on no news from the Company, it remains the prerogative of the individual analyst to express his/her opinion and the Company will not make a public comment on this. The Company’s Directors are aware of the Wedbush rating change. Please note that UBS, Canaccord Genuity, HC Wainwright, Leerink Swann and Piper Jaffray analysts all continue to maintain their positive outlooks for Insmed with no changes to rating or price targets.
While this downgrade may have affected the share price in the near term, it is the long term value of the Company that is important. Hopefully, the Company’s upcoming data from the U.S. Phase 2 trial of ARIKACE to treat NTM lung disease will be positive, and Insmed will continue to move forward to bring this important therapeutic to NTM patients suffering from this debilitating lung disease for which there are no currently approved treatments.
I share this to return email as to the company stance. It was reassuring to see the long list of other analysts who have kept their ratings.
The only way it could make sense for me is if the professional investors have reason to believe the BOD will make their move stick via an offering priced at wherever they manage to take the share price to.
That would be an exact repeat of the maneuver last May-July - so I for one wouldn't be in the least surprised if the BOD facilitates massive destruction of shareholder value a second time within the space of a year or so.
The BOD will have to act before the announcement of whether or not the Phase II data support accelerated approval though. I can't imagine how they would be able to justify a sub-$30 offering once they have confirmed the data is sufficiently compelling.