What sanctimonious tripe. As if being long this stock is an act of selfless patriotism, rather than just a financial speculation. Personally, when I think of the Great Men who built this Great Country of ours, I think of Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt, the great builder and operator of steamships and founder of he New York Central ... who made and lost a fortune shorting the Erie Railroad. Jay Gould, guiding spirit of the Union Pacific and a dozen other railroads .. who was also a notorious short, first collaborating with Vanderbilt on the famous Erie War, then betraying him. The great Daniel Drew, perhaps the most famous short of all, who made a vast fortune, endowed Drew University with a huge bequest (which he never paid) and died broke. And let's not forget Jim Fisk, the brilliant stock speculator whose specialty was "watered stock" - railroad stocks which he sold at a high price, then systematically diluted while he shorted them. Great Americans all!
Notwithstanding nitabosco's consistent statements to the contrary, Ironwood's current market cap (per NASDAQ) is $1.87 billion. Synergy's is $676 million. The problem is that the poor innocent has confused "capitalization" (the amount of money invested in a company) with "market capitalization" (the aggregate market value of the outstanding shares). Of course, in all other areas, such as the certainty of plecanatide swiftly supplanting Linzess, nitabosco's logic is irrefutable.
Note that since SNY made their offer, pharma stocks have been rallying. INCY, a comparable company in some ways, is up 25% since March 30. Among my holdings, GLPG is up 39%, ACHN up 31%, IRWD up 25%, etc. So, if we assume that MDVN would have advanced a more modest 20% without SNY's bid (7.48), this would suggest a current price of 44.87. In that light, the offer of 52.50 hardly seems like much of a premium.
No small drug company can afford to market these drugs worldwide without help. And, in fact, this particular class of drugs is not profitable enough to sustain a dedicated sales force in the US. Which is why Ironwood is also representing Cologuard and has recently bought the US rights to the Astellas gout drug. As for losses, they had expected to become cash flow positive in 2017 prior to this purchase, but have now pushed this back to 2018.
Just got the white cards from Sanofi and put them right into the recycle bag. I think they are wasting their time and money on this solicitation. They are telling you that their offer of $52.50 is a great opportunity, while the market is telling you that the company is worth $60 a share ...or more.
Given that 145mcg and 290mcg doses of Linzess have been approved and widely prescribed for years, your predictions seem fanciful.
Incidentally, rigorous analysis has demonstrated that in terms of incidence/severity of diarrhea, Liinzess and plecanatide are roughly equal.
A mini flash crash. I added some at 59.5. When someone wants to unload shares in a heavily arbitraged stock such as this, it makes no sense to throw them into the market quickly. But no doubt some stops got taken out. One of the interesting arguments Medivation advances against acceptance of the offer is that it was made at the low point of the biotech selloff.
PS Have to note that Tesaro, with a PARP inhibitor of much weaker apparent potency (niraparib) has shot up to a market cap of $4.14 billion today. Let's talk about $100 a share, Sanofi.
I actually bought more shares ah after listening to the presentation. I have owned MDVN on and off for several years and have always found management to be conservative and accurate in their projections. Unlike the hustlers who head many of these companies, Hung is a scientist.
To the degree that the stock drifts down, it's probably due to short term retail speculators on margin looking for a quick profit. The long tem holders are doing fine here and are not in any hurry to unload their shares, I think.
PS Note also that since March 30, the XBI, an ETF which features many smaller cap pharma stocks, is up 17%.
An independent panel of four gastroenterologists, examining all the available trials data, concluded exactly that. What is your basis for concluding otherwise? And, I ask once again: if plecanatide is the prettiest girl in the room, why can't she get a date? And why is she so desperate as to seek one night stands with such conspicuous losers as BIND?
At the moment, IRWD is 25 cents (2%) below its 52 week high.
The IBB is 139 points (35%) below its 52 week high.
SGYP is $6.32 (62%) below its 52 week high.
Take your pick: (1) The company is at least $2 billion short of what it would take to launch plecanatide; (2) There are no bidders; (3) Aside from Paulson -the genius who loaded up on VRX at 190 and then doubled down - there is no interest; (4) The stock has been diluted about 80% since the beginning of 2015, ...
Or, just observe events which suggest this is a scam: (1)At the end of 2015, the company announces that, although they have suspended trials on dolcanatide to conserve cash, their operating losses have ballooned due to "increased executive compensation"; (2) After a couple of false starts, they announce that the conversion of a convertible note below the conversion price is a wonderful thing since it will save them a lot of money in interest payments ("Good news, honey! The bank just cancelled our credit line!"); (3) The CFO, who was obviously embarrassed by this release, quits. (4.) Release of pathetic 24 patient unblinded one month trial on dolcanatide (must have cost them $50,000); (5) Poor old Paulson signs on for another 30 million shares at $3; etc. etc. Just mentioning any of this will bring the old believers swarming out of the crevices of the reef.
In addition to arguing the strength of their pipeline, Medivation points out that the tender offer was made at the nadir of pharma valuations. I note that the stock is up about 55% from its recent low of March 30; however the IBB is up 15% since that point. And many individual stocks have recovered much more quickly. INCY, another likely takeover candidate, is up 25% since that date. GLPG is up 39%, ACHN up 31%, IRWD is up 26% etc. If we assume a 25% increase in price due to normal market fluctuations, that would take the price up from 38 to 47.5. In that context, a 52.50 offer represents a tiny premium.
First of all, to buy out the present float at $5 a share would cost the potential acquirer about $1 billion. Then, assuming plecanatide is approved, it would cost at least another $1 billion to bring the drug to market. This is probably conservative. To launch Linzess - even though Forest Labs was paying half the marketing and developmental costs - Ironwood needed secondary offerings and loans of $711 million. Even though they had received substantial licensing and milestone fees from their four partners.
So you've spent $2 billion to create an as-yet unprofitable competitor to the entrenched Linzess. Since the drugs are roughly comparable, the only way to dislodge Linzess from the formularies would be via a lower price. Ironwood would be forced to respond. This would cut their profits, but as the established brand, they could cut their sales force, eliminate dtc advertising, and take other steps to maintain profitability. It would be a much less attractive business for Linzess, but an impossible one for plecanatide.
Since the original poster posed his question on May 2, the stock has appreciated about 50%. The value here has to do with a proprietary drug development technique which has engaged JNJ, Alexion, Goehringer-Ingelheim, Merck, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and lately Novartis, and absolutely nothing to do with dividends and earnings.
Through stock dilution in 2015 and 2016, they have already, in effect, sold 44% of the company. These 80 million additional shares were floated at about $3 a share. (The second note redemption was actually at around $2.80 a share.) They still have only a fraction of the money it would take to launch plecanatide.