Lewis offers colour on numerous areas of uncertainty.
The plan is to initiate discussions with the European regulatory agencies this Fall to determine if the data from the ongoing NTM clinical trial will be adequate to support marketing authorisation.
They are looking forward to break down the data from the CF study in order to highlight the sub-populations which experienced superior efficacy from Arikace over Tobi - as the basis for targeting Arikace where it's likely to offer the optimum cost-benefit argument.
He completely debunks Terry's claim that the Company anticipates additional NTM studies to be necessary for approval.
He completely debunks Rehdvm's claim that Arikace will be just another CF antibiotic fighting for a place in the rotational regimen - clearly suggesting that once-daily dosing will position Arikace as the central therapy, with the others being used reluctantly during the Arikace off-therapy phases.
He talks about how Novartis might be looking to position the Podhaler, and notes the difficulty confronting Gilead in grabbing market share for a thrice-daily therapy which isn't even an aminoglycoside.
Just on the off-chance that the lack of feedback in this forum might be due to other investors having failed to run the replay due to the problem I initially encountered, it doesn't take long to download and install the Silverlight thingy.
Attaboy fudfighter! I want to let you know that on principle we don't disagree concerning the recent dilution. However, I think Insmed is looking at a short-window to commercialization and needs to have 200L Arikace production underway immediately. I think Wall Street wasn't done loading the boat, and blue-chip funds that buy Insmed wanted to get in on the ground floor which is now 10.40. Future growth based on revenue expansion and the liposomal platform will far outweigh the negative result of near-term dilution. IMO, INSM is positioned for a buy-out in the mid-20s, but I don't think Lewis is interested in that scenario. He wants to be the billion-dollar CEO, which means Insmed will be worth multiple billions. Furthermore, future dilutions won't be necessary due to revenue production in the CF and NTM indications, IMO. Then there's Iplex....
It seems to me that the timing of both offerings was not in the slightest in the interests of existing shareholders who pay the salaries of the BOD, but very much in the interests of those who took advantage of the offerings.
Particularly so with regard to last October's offering. The BOD raised $26 million we clearly had no urgent need for, diluting us by 20% in return for peanuts - because they chose to issue shares to those lucky investors at a point when the share price was not far from its all-time low, and any investor with a basic awareness of valuation could see that the price would almost certainly be double or treble $4.07 within six months or so.
When the BOD completed the Hercules financing in mid-2012 we were told they then had enough cash to reach the end of THIS year. Back then it was obvious the BOD would conduct an offering towards the end of this year on the back of the Phase III results - so how exactly was it in our interests for the BOD to conduct an offering entailing toxic dilution just a few months after the Hercules deal, and then conduct a second suspiciously premature offering?
Do you understand that the Hercules deal gave us the luxury of not having to raise any further funds until such time as the Phase III results were reflected in the share price? Do you understand that instead, the BOD has diluted us TWICE before the Phase III results could be reflected in the share price?
Unless you can offer us something which excuses the extremely suspicious TIMING of the two offerings it seems unlikely that any further discussion between the two of us will be of value to others who use this forum.
How does your explanation that Insmed urgently needed the cash from this latest offering tie in with the Company'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.
Why couldn't they have waited until October - the time of year they conducted the previous offering? Who would have been expecting an offering any earlier this year?
You think I'm mad about this latest offering? Wrong. I'm mad about the CONFIRMATION this latest offering provided that the Company betrayed us last October when they diluted us by 20% to raise a miserly $26 million.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt at the time. For all we knew there could have been a need for extra cash at that point which was of such extreme urgency that a 20% dilution in return for $26 million was excusable.
Even with the higher cash burn you're touting the Company is on course to end the year without needing to tap that $26 million, let alone the cash raised in the second offering.
I'm always happy to try to look at things from a different angle. Tell me why this is more acceptable to you than it is to me.