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!
Many months ago, someone here guesstimated that the average price for his initial position was 8.32 a share. He doubled up at lower prices and then added a much larger lot at 3. Maybe 4 or thereabouts?
What really threw me off the scent of your brilliant gamble on NERV was that until today, you never mentioned it. In fact, you seem never to mention any stock but SGYP. You can understand how some people less trusting than I might question your veracity.
Speaking of losing it, why aren't you out spending your imaginary NERV winnings?
The successful trial of Minerva's schizo drug apparently took everyone by surprise. This is a stock which had plodded along at around 5- 6, trading about 35,000 shares a day. This week, ahead of the release of the trial data, the volume increased quickly .... and everyone was selling. On Monday, it traded over 500,000 shares and the stock dropped almost a dollar. On Tuesday, 229,000 shares were traded and it dropped another 20 cents. Yesterday, 361,000 shares traded and it dropped another 30 cents. Everyone was obviously dumping it and running. The major holder Care Capital III, which had held 3.9 million shares at the beginning of the year, had also been dumping shares, and by the end of March had sold all but a million shares. Yes, everyone was selling ... except for that insightful contrarian, hawk25702! He alone had the vision to buy this hitherto unknown and unmentioned stock (1 Yahoo message board post in the last 3 months). And he didn't share this brilliant hunch with his good buddies ... who still trust him!
Yeah, it does seem outrageous. I would remind you that Ironwood received approval for Linzess for both CIC and IBS-C in August of 2012.
Bet you could use a little air, stu. You're deep underwater on this short and going down for the third time.
My point is that Synergy is in no position to go it alone. This does not really put their "excellent management" in a strong bargaining position, as is demonstrated by their recent sale of a major chunk of the company for $3 a share.
PS In 2011, the year immediately preceding the Launch of Linzess, Ironwood ended the year with $164MM in the bank, so they were in much better shape than SGYP will be at the end of 2016. Despite this fact, and despite the fact that Forest was going to pay for half the marketing and sales expenses, they had to float a secondary for $100MM in early 2012. In 2013, they not only floated another secondary for $136MM, they issued notes for $175MM. In 2015, with the launch in its third year, they floated another secondary for $300MM. So, to get Linzess to its present stage of development AFTER APPROVAL, they not only had to sell half the rights to the drug, they had to raise another $700MM. All this time, they were also collecting licensing and milestone payments from their four partners. (Now three, since the purchase of Almirall's rights by Allergan.)
Yes, hawk25702 was certainly a naughty boy to not only keep his NERV position a secret from the rest of us, but to keep it a secret from everyone on the NERV board, too. One of the final stages of disillusionment with one's stock investments is to fantasize about imaginary investments.
Over the past three months, prior to today, there were 7 posts on the Yahoo! board for NERV. Six of these were spam for various stock newsletters.
This, if true, is great news. It means that there are six fewer stupid people in the world than I had thought.
Well, you should have told your buddy stu to cover at the same time. It looks like it's headed for 12.50 today, which was actually my end-of-year price target.
But you are right. I am not worthy. As the distinguished doctor reminded me Saturday, he is "a busy important man" and I am "a douche".
Yes, and a you reminded us all on Saturday, you don't really have time for all this. ("I am a busy important man...") Why are you wasting your valuable time in exchanges with people you have identified as either Ironwood sales reps or nickel-a-post trolls?
In his somewhat myopic view of Synergy's balance sheet, indiansfan407 says, "Current cash will last for at least a year, way past the anticipated catalyst in Q3." I gather that the "anticipated catalyst" is the release of favorable IBS-C data." Apparently this is somehow going to bring a flood of new cash into Synergy's dwindling war cheat. How? Through further stock dilution? He adds the cash on hand as of 3/31, $84MM, to the $90MM raised through the recent secondary, and using a projected burn rate of $20MM - $30MM a quarter, calculates that by the beginning of 2017, they'll still be solvent. However, if they are really going to launch plecanatide in 2017, just being solvent won't cut it. First of all, if they are going to prepare for a launch, the burn rate in the latter quarters of this year will be much higher. They will have to invest in sales and marketing staff and make arrangements to manufacture and distribute the drug. And how much will it cost to roll plecanatide out in 2017? During 2014, the first full year of the Linzess launch, Ironwood burned through $273MM - and this was WITH a partner paying half the joint marketing and sales expenses. Without this partnership, the cost would have been closer to $400MM. In 2015, the year Ironwood and Allergan began to invest in DTC advertising, the cash drain only decreased slightly, amounting to around $243MM. NET: Synergy doesn't have a fraction of the money it would cost to market plecanatide. Without a major international pharma partner who brings a major cash infusion, they have no future. This would naturally involve further dilution of the shareholders' interest.