They have been selling and buying shares of this company since 2009. They are likely also acting as market maker. It really does not do much to the share price. Also three companies own over 70 percent of the shares here and they control this company and the board. The problem is in the marketing of the products. The company also seems to want to be a stand alone but I don't know if it management actually know how to market its products. This is what is holding the price up. Good products but bad marketing strategies.
The company has a good pipeline and two good products on the market. The problem is finding good marketing partners and partnerships for its pipeline. There is a high probability that the drug candidates in the company's pipe will follow the same approval path as Oxecta. The company really needs to get Oxecta back from PFE and find other partners to help develop and market its products.
The stocks came from debt conversions into common stock, the exercise of warrant and stock given as payments in lieu of cash years ago. This is why the company has no long-term debt. This is a stock that really should trade to $10 by 2014 but it is getting stonewalled by a sector that only wants to support drug abuse for money.
"The first two commercial products utilizing Acura’s tamper-resistant technologies are OXECTA® and NEXAFED®. In addition, Acura has seven other abuse deterrent products in development: Hydrocodone bitartrate/acetaminophen tablets, Oxycodone HCl/acetaminophen tablets, Hydromorphone tablets, Morphine tablets, Oxymorphone tablets, Tramadol tablets and Methadone tablets."
That is not correct. The shares came are form conversions of debt into common stocks. some of the stock came the exercise of warrants and some were given as interest payments years ago in lieu of cash. This is why the company has no long-term debt ( the debt holders converted their debt into common stocks years ago for control of the company.. They now own most the company.
"Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg just posted to her Facebook page that she was supposed to be on the Boeing 777 that crash landed in San Francisco today along with some of her family and colleagues."
I don't think Ms. Sandberg is worrying about monetizing Instagram or the FB stock price right now. Good thing she and her family are alright. God was looking out for and/or sending her a message this weekend. Having material things can be good but doing right by the ones we serve can be better. All the stock options in the world are not doing those who lost their lives in that crash any good.
I really think Cramer's problem is with Sandberg. She is spending too much time promoting her book and not enough time promoting FB. I read or saw at least four with interviews with her and she mentioned very little about FB or Instagram. The only thing she is promoting is her book right. Mark just does not want to tell her that she really needs to start refocusing her attention on developing contents to promote FB. Face the fact: Most people, women or men, would have got canned by now if they were spending all of their time on unrelated job projects while their job performance was lacking. They surely would have got the ticket if they promoted competitor's products during interviews.
Mark and investors are caught between a rock and a hard place with her. If they try to get rid of her, she will likely retaliate against them. If they don't say anything about her not directing investors and users attention to the positives about FB, she will likely continue to push up cost until she causes major problems for the company. Mark really needs to sit down and have a serious discussion with her about job. Hopefully, she will listen and start power tripping on him or treating him like she is his mother instead of the boss.
The best bet for investors is to have patience with their investment of this company. The best scenario is for PFE to turn back Oxecta to ACUR. Acura's management seems to believe more in these new drugs than PFE. PFE is stonewalling this company to keep its drugs off the market. The company would be better off marketing Oxecta on its own and/or finding knew partners for the remainder of its pipeline including Nexafed. The company should try to get the marketing rights Oxecta back from PFE if sales are under $30 million.
If PFE does not want to commit any more funds or marketing dollars to these programs, it should eventually give Oxecta back to Acura and move on. This would be the best move for both companies, especially if revenues are at $10 million. Some peak projections are near $100 million which is good for Acura but PFE will likely turn back the product if sales are say under $20 million. This is what investors will have to watch for here.
PFE will likely turn back the product if sales are between $10 million to $20 million because it normally does not market drugs below a certain sales revenue cutoff ( this will also be good for Acura). Between $20 to $30 million Acura would likely have to cut a deal with PFE to get Oxecta back. Over $30 million PFE would likely keep its current agreement. Acura should win in all of these cases.
There really was no major reason for selling this stock at those prices unless the company hedged its long position by selling naked calls and shorted a few shares. If so, it may only have covering a few paired short positions now that PFE has announced the marketing expansion of Ocexta at the end third quarter 2013. This is likely the case because the price would have really spiked on the holders of those 1 million shorted shares unless they controlled the move by selling long into a rally. Care Cap would have made a lot more money by just holding the shares. The stock price should start to retrace to over $2.30 in the few months if this was the case.
I really don't think the company has the funds to compete with the Sudafed brand on a national level. First it will have to get national brand recognition for Nexafed and then it will have to convince loyal Sudafed consumers to change to it. IF the company does not seek out a major marketing partner, it will have to roll out the product in certain markets while concentrating its marketing dollars in those markets. Normally, companies will start in a few markets and then expand into others when there is stronger brand recognition for their products. The company may be able to convince some consumers change products based on the social benefits of Nexafed and its comparable Sudafed effectiveness but this will take some very smart marketing dollars. Also, Nexafed may be required to be behind the counter but no one said the marketing had to be....hint.
Second, the company can't do much about the marketing of Oxecta unless it changes the agreement with PFE to allow its own sales representatives to sell the product at the higher royalty rate of 25 percent.. This could also help it with the marketing of Nexafed.
I also think a major marketing partner would be better for Nexafed. The company can talk to J&J for a possible addition of Nexafed to the Sudafed product line. It may go along with it in an effort to show the public more social responsibility and that it is trying to discourage meth drug use ( a part of the company's overall marketing). All it can say is no.
The underlying problems with this stock is that ACUR management really does not know how to market Nexafed. It would probably be better off if it sought a major partner J&J to help market the product under the Sudafed product line. PFE is also dragging its feet on the marketing of Oxecta.. The stock has the potential to go to at least $8 easy but only with the proper marketing paths for its products. The company need a partner to market Nexafed.
This is basically a $10 or better which trades at $2 because the marketing of its products.
The real problem is Sandberg needs to focus more on developing and promoting FB instead of her own book.
These stories are coming from Facebook competitors who essentially doing the same thing. Most of this is about is about ad dollars and finding content that will attract readers. With 1.1 billion users and over 1 million advertisers FB just happens to be a very attractive company to write about for authors to get hits on their stories. This is how they attract advertisers.
Facebook is also going after market share to attract and retain more advertisers. A strategy that is putting pressure on print and companies who have not figured out how to transition to digital platforms. Most are having the same problem of finding ways to get consumers to pay for digital platforms. Their solution: copy FB. These companies are just trying to get ad dollars or keep from losing them ( as we later found to be the motive of Rupert Murdoch's behind the scenes antics).
Mark is not Gay. GOOG also sent employees to part take in the rally on Sunday. This group also spend money and votes, so like it or not companies and political groups are going to side with them on certain issues..
"FTC is investigating whether or not the deal will reduce market choice for users, and follows from the claims made by the US pressure groups that the purchase of Waze will give Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) a dominating position in mapping apps, says a report from Telegraph."
This is a another argument investor will see against GOOG. Regulators will investigate it for trying to reduce competition, therefore it may be forced to share markets with competitors which should benefit FB in the long-term. It can only go so far before regulators and companies start bring anti-competitive claims against it. The point: The GOOG dominates FB argument is very complex than most are putting out there.
Who is everybody? This company has very little exposure to the bond markets. Its capital structure only consist of about $1.5 in debt. The company historically does not carry a lot of debt on its books, so it should not have much sensitivity to changes in the bond market yields. It also does not have any exposure to China. These two factors have nothing to do with FB and its growth unless it can actually enter the China market.
The bears have just provided the markets with arguments to #$%$ investors and drive down stock prices. These arguments have nothing to do with the metrics of FB.
Someone is playing games here. The only argument people are making is the FB comparison with GOOG. Most see FB gaining advertising market shares over most companies while others are using GOOG to negate this. GOOG is the only strong case they have against FB. The problem: GOOG is a mature company, so its growth may stabilize in later years. FB is a growth company and its growth should accelerate in the next few years, especially if it finds the right content and product mixes.
"Durect will receive royalties for Remoxy and the other licensed drug candidates of between 6.0% to 11.5% of net sales of the drug candidate depending on sales volume as well as a mark-up on Durect's supply of key excipients used in the manufacture of the licensed drug candidates"
This is why PFE is dragging its feet on Remoxy. It wants to change the terms of this DRRX agreement. Also. your reply is common of investors who try to short these types of stocks. The only reason this stock has not closed over a $1 in three weeks is because there is a nuisance trader on it. He has to work for a trading desk at brokerage, only professional traders trade in odd cents or fractions of a cents (like:1.545 cents. He is the only one keeping the price under a $1. I suspect the reason is he planned to make your above argument soon while short or he is buying and does not want anyone pushing up the price, yet.. Both could be true.
Only a fool would short this stock at these price levels. Price could go down a little but it up a lot. There is too much downside risk in being short on this stock.
Well, why don't you just short the stock. If you are a 100 percent sure put all your money up and send us proof. OR stop speculating a 100% on it.
You are engaging in what is known as a speculative argument. Do you even know that the market for pain therapies is expected to grow to about $60 billion a year by 2015. States are also implementing statues to influence drug companies to develop more abuse deterrent formations. PFE has already figured out how to get Remoxy by the FDA but it is only concerned with past cost, so it is trying to get DRRX and Pain T to change the contract terms for lower royalties. It already has the solution to the Remoxy problem and it likely will not let any competitors have it via a product turn back, especially with less or no generics entering the markets anytime soon. It would not cost much to get it approved and on the market by others (the benefit would far outweigh the cost for other companies).
I am also sure that DRRX and Pain T would be happy to get Remoxy with projected sales of $500 million a year and most of the development cost out of the way. I am sure TEVA would be happy to take Remoxy off PFE's hands for the low cost to get it on the markets. This is one of the reasons why PFE is trying to change the contract terms.