"Great post rehdvm, You're the man! The one thing that fuddy keeps forgetting is that Insmed filed the shelf before Russell inclusion, so of course WS knew Insmed was going to finance. But they need to, because the need for 200 L of production couldn't be delayed a moment longer!"
1. How does your implication that Insmed urgently needed the cash from this latest offering tie in with Insmed's latest guidance that even with the highest anticipated cash burn it will end the year with $43.8 million - PLUS the $67 million from this latest offering.
Note carefully that even without the cash from this offering, the high end of the Company's current spending plans will still leave $43.8 million at year end - which would leave $17.8 million to spare had NEITHER of the two recent offerings taken place. The two together diluted us by 44%.
I've consistently maintained that at least one offering would have been necessary before the end of this year, but that the Company could easily have afforded to allow our market valuation to adjust in line with analyst valuations with Phase III success before they started talking to the market about issuing more shares.
I've always though you were a decent person. Would you care to explain what you felt justified you to post "The one thing that fuddy keeps forgetting"?
2. What's so great about Item 6 of rehdvm's post? -
"And 25 of 81 plus have elected to continue under EAP."
I only ask because my personal view is that a follow-on ratio that low is absolutely disastrous - and indicative of a major problem.
I do have something more to offer on this issue for those who are interested. But I'd like to hear your thoughts first.
Could you explain to me how Ipsen will have profitable US operations in 2014 (as they have so guided) while still producing that cancer causing, batch failing, inferior Increlex at a $50mil loss annually? Why do you think they stopped manufacturing?
There seem to be more than enough here who still have great expectations for iPlex to be able to do the relevant research and offer reasoned arguments without any help from me. And they're welcome to use the info I posted recently on the implications for an existing manufacturing source of the two Orphan designations last year.
Fwiw - the big unknown for me regarding iPlex is in whether or not Insmed now has a better delivery vehicle for the IGF-1 than IGFBP-3.
fud...allow me to clear this up. You conveniently use your dishonesty on asking piano question #2. Why is 25 of 81 good? Because studies like this are feed and bleed. A participant would not enter the EAP until they were out of the study. Therefore, since they are still enrolling, it means that 25 people are signing up for EAP while perhaps as many as another 50 remain in the study. That is good.