I refuted your absurd ramblings. Posting nonsense in upper case doesn't make it any less silly.
Yes, as we know the options buyers are always right. And the people who sell them are always wrong. Which is why the Najarian brothers are broke.
No, I never switch id's. But perhaps you're right, and the fact that you ignored me when I first began questioning the wisdom of owning this at 9.46 has somehow made you a lot of money.??? At that time, July 30, IRWD was at 10.46. So if you ignored me and shorted that doomed stock, perhaps, in some mysterious way, that's been a swell investment, too. ??? The sad thing is that for many of you, SGYP is your largest - or only - investment.
The MM's, as usual, were shorting this at 6.20 all day. And they will make those positions profitable.
Well, unlike the shorts in SGYP, those IRWD shorts are feeling pain. Which probably means they're not that smart - they're just SGYP longs making the same dumb bet in two different venues.
Here' my lame rebuttal to your latest nonsense: (1) The only meaningful addition is the ill-starred Mr. Paulson. Blackrock and Vanguard own a piece of everything through their ETF's. (2) In fact, the institutional ownership of this stock - 57% - is extraordinarily small. Of the dozen or so pharma stocks I own now, only two very small ones - CHRS and TKAI - show smaller institutional ownership on the NASDAQ site. (2) The figures are meaningless, since shares held in brokerage accounts and short positions also show up as "institutional ownership". For example, IRWD shows 111% institutional ownership. Because the figures include short shares.( And we know that SGYP's short position is about as big as IRWD's.) (3) These numbers are lousy predictors. VRX, the Paulson fiasco, had institutional ownership of 88% as of 9/30. TTPH, my personal mini-fiasco, showed 76%. CLVS, the stock which collapsed yesterday, was at 93%.
Pharma stocks are inherently risky. I accept that they are those who know more about them than I do. The funds which specialize in these stocks have analysts with access to information, people sitting on their boards, and, most importantly, a lot of industry connections. So the fact that Perceptive Advisors added a million shares of TKAI is more impressive to me than Paulson adding 3 million SGYP.
I am posting numbers. You are posting fantasies (e.g. "GREEN and way up today")
I am more impressed by Orbimed - a much more successful pharma investor than Paulson - lightening up on both companies.
PS It also seems to me that the action is controlled completely by the MM's. There are no shares available to short because they have them locked up. Aside from a few daytraders, there is very little real interest in the stock.
I have read your posts and believe that you, unlike so many on this board, are an actual person. However, there is an unfortunate tendency here to accuse anyone with a contrary opinion of being a paid pumper or basher. Which is ridiculous on the face of it, since the total audience on this board is about a dozen people, all of whom already have their minds made up, it seems. I also accept that since plectanadide (sp?) has a somewhat different mechanism of action than Linzess, it may work better for some people, although I did not find the trial results as impressive as most here. My major theme is that this is not a stock which one should bet the farm on.
It's not only cold and wet - it's dark. For example, on Christmas day, there are 7.5 hours of daylight. Today, there are 8.5 hours between sunrise and sunset - just enough to guarantee that during your commute, you will not only be stuck in some of Europe's worst traffic, you will be in the dark, too.
Since your postis fairlyrational, onw wonders why you wouldn't use your own id ...unless you have discredited it. Ever since its introduction over three years ago, Linzess has been eroding Amitiza's market share in the US. They now have more than 60% of the market. (Amitiza continues to do well in overseas markets.). However, Ironwood and their partner are spending heavily on advertising and couponing, so that profitability is further off. To this point, Ironwood has rung up over a billion dollars in operating losses. So if and when they generate earnings, they will be taxfree for a loooong time. that's the bull case.
If you're going to post nonsense, why use a counterfeit of my id? Synergy is a little outside the value universe of Graham-Dodd. (as is Ironwood, for that matter) Even putting them in the same sentence is like putting Pluto on your local bus schedule. Synergy is predicted to lose $25m a quarter until such time that they can bring a drug to market. If everything goes according to the rosy projections here, this should take place in late 2017. Then they can start losing SERIOUS money. According to Yahoo!, they have 35 fulltime employees at the moment. Ironwood has 464. Interestingly, Ironwood has a number of major partners and is still losing about $100m a year, even as their sales burgeon. They are spending money on advertising and couponing heavily to build market share. The only bright spot is that if they were to be folded into an existing stable of GI drugs, they would instantly become quite profitable. As for Synergy: no product, no partner, no immediate prospects.
Given the recent performance of major hedge funds this might not mean much, however ...David Tepper's Appaloosa Fund, which seems to be in a defensive mode, lightening up on AAPL and other major holdings, doubled its stake in DAL during the third quarter. It is now his third largest position at 9.52% of his portfolio.
PS If you want a coiled spring, you ought to be piling into VRX. That one got coiled another 3 bucks today.
And during that time period, 6/30 to 9/30, when these big guns were supposedly piling in, SGYP's stock price dropped from 8.30 to 5.30.
So then you've been buying all the way down since I first started to post on July 30 when the stock was at 9.46? Nice work. I have had lots of opportunities to buy this stock much lower than that, but I am waiting because I WANT YOUR SHARES!!