If you think the ATM sales are not affecting stock price...
You are mistaken. That, in my humble opinion, is the primary driver to keeping AEZS from moving higher. The market makers likely have standing sell orders in the 100's of thousands above the current ask price from ATM.
AEZS has absorbed a significant amount of stock in the last two years. But through all the dilution, the market cap has increased. Consider this: 3/2010 63M shares outstanding, stock trading around $.80, market cap around $50M 3/2012 103M shares outstanding, stock trading around $1.90, market cap around $200M
AEZS has absorbed 40M shares in 2 years from ATMs and a shelf offerings. That is ALOT of stock, an increase of almost 65%. There was a shelf offering in June 2010 to raise $50M, an ATM 2/2011 for 12M shares, an ATM 6/2011 for 9.5M shares and an ATM 1/2012 for 10M shares.
If you look at the charts of KERX and AEZS, you can clearly see a divergence close to the timing of the ATM announcements. It definitely has an impact.
The good news, they've raised a lot of money and hopefully will be able to rely on upcoming royalties to fund further advances and that there is light at the end of the ATM tunnel.
If the ATM was in action this week it would mean that management is not confident that the mCRC trial is successful,,,,,The cash on hand prior to the 2012 ATM is more than sufficient if you believe that there is a fair chance that the trial is successful,,,,,,I cant wait to hear what they did or did not do.....I hope that there were no ATM sales and if this is the case I will increase my already over exposure
1) if peri has good results this atm is peanuts. 2) i have confidence mgnt knows what they are doing.they have s kin in the game. 3 if peri is approved they get another 60 mil from japan 4)this stock is spring loaded i can tell by the trading that it can be held down for only so long.
Almost all small bio companies are forced to dilute in one way or another because the cost of commercialization and developing a pipeline is well beyond the capacity of most. There are several options available to companies with promising therapies or devices but this management’s almost reflexive resort to the ATM has hit the point of diminishing returns as we can see by the lack of volume and price compared to that of kerx. I suspect a shelf to institutional buyers would have been preferable in the latest round to pandering once too often to the same pool of buyers. AEZS has been able to raise money through equity offerings and retain the significant rights to their products and have created more potential value for shareholders than if they had partnered too early but management has to step up their game and be more creative going forward as commercializing perifosine in Europe will not be cheap.