Well, according to the last 13f, they own 1.5 million shares. (= loss of $50 million or so). Chump change, I suppose.
Alright, I have looked up "Bleecker Bob", but the reference is about 150 years too late. The clue is "Daniel Drew".
Oh, come on. No one announces anything at these events. But your fantasies about my life are getting more colorful. I am going to look up "Bleecker Bob".
I don't think anyone went to jail. (link, please?) There is nothing illegal about shorting. In fact, since the dawn of civilization, those who are willing to bet against the trend play an essential part in all markets. When markets get carried up on a wave of enthusiasm, shorts provide a kind of speed brake. And when markets drop, the only buyers holding the price up are the shorts. "Naked shorting" is something that only the MM's can do, in my experience, since they're usually shorting their own shares. I note that on my Schwab page, SGYP is designated as "hard to borrow". This means, essentially, "Don't bother trying to short this stock; we've already lent out all our borrowable shares to the shorts." (And, by the way, unless you have put in a GTC order on your shares - say an offer to sell at 15 - your shares are being loaned out to shorts by E-trade, Schwab, Merrill, whoever. These are the "institutional" owners who seem to impress so many here.) The fact that there are few additional shares available to short can be either a good or a bad thing. It means (1) There is a large short position, and (2) Retail shorts are essentially defenseless against a rally - they can't double up their position. Incidentally, I don't see a lot of symptoms of active shorting here. On the contrary, I think the options trade is in play and is supporting the stock, however weakly.
Well, it looks like old Guy McDonald finally got it right. If he hadn't sold all those shares, the state of California would be handing him a big tax bill which he wouldn't have the money to pay. Also looks like the Baker Brothers finally got one wrong. Me, too.
"Let's wait and see"? C'mon break out the dry powder and buy some shares! You can't just sit around and let the HFTs do the heavy lifting.
He has a bad case of coprophilia which, among other things, causes him to love SGYP and the Indians.
That image of interupting your golf game to "head back to the shed" - i think you lifted that from the Cialis commercial which tries to sell the drug as an answer to BPH. You even tacked on the bit about intimacy. The idea that someone has chronic constipation, then begins to take Linzess and ends up with chronic diarrhea is silly. If Linzess gives you diarrhea, you (1) take it as is directed, first thing in the morning, before breakfast (which solves the problem for most people), or (2) switch to a lower dose, or (3) stop taking it. In which case you can wait 4 years for plecanatide to come to market - but in the meantime, that's a lot of cramping.
Okay, I've looked up "encopresis", and although it's new to my vocabulary, I don't think I'll be using it again soon. Many of the posters here seem to be fascinated by diarrhea, which is probably the furthest thing from the mind of someone suffering from CIC. I made some money on Santaurus last year when they were bought out by Salix for their drug Uceris, which basically helped those with the more common form of IBS from spending their life in the restroom. Reading the happy reviews of Uceris patients, I don't recall any of them expressing a concern about constipation.
Well, I know it's the Labor Day Weekend, but you're slurring your words. Here's how SGYP is like ARNA: The partisans believe that it is about to displace another drug. (I forget what the VVUS drug was - the OREX drug hadn't even been approved yet.) What they had failed to notice was that the VVUS drug wasn't making any money ..in fact, they had been discounting it and couponing it heavily to generate sales. (kind of like Linzess) There were also a lot of over-the-counter drugs available, plus generic prescription weight loss drugs. The strongest similarity, however, was that ARNA had a cadre of shareholders who believed, in spite of the fact that it had run up from 3 to 13, then fallen back to the 9's that it was sure to surge again. Their explanation for the stock's failure to rally was: (1)"trapped shorts" desperately driving the stock down, (2) institutions driving the price down in order to get YOUR SHARES cheap, (3) paid bashers, the tools of large hedge funds, eroding the morale of the longs. Of course, they missed the most obvious explanation: The professionals saw that the company was not, in the foreseeable future, going to make any money. The amateurs were waiting for an event -the big runup - which had already happened. Rather like those "cargo cults" in the South Pacific who, having once been showered with airdrops of Jeeps and K-rations, wait expectantly for the C-47's to return.
Calling me an idiot is not a very persuasive argument. But if it makes you feel better, go right ahead. I have never offered any opinion as to your intelligence.
If shorts were covering, the price would be going up. Incidentally, I don't "bump" my posts or anyone else's. I provide contrary arguments which you are welcome to refute .. however, the only rebuttal I usually get here are "liar" and "desperate short". I don't think my rational arguments are cancelled out by stellarresults' fantasies about diarrhea and imminent buyouts. As for the clinical results, it's strange that the "stunning success" has been met by a precipitous drop in the share price.
Looking more closely at the trials suggests the possibility that pleconatide may actually CAUSE constipation. The placebo in both their trials produced a 1.3% rate of diarrhea. Whereas in the Linzess trial, the placebo produced a 5% rate of diarrhea. So just being in the same trial as pleconatide- perhaps the proximity of the drug in the same medical center? - seems to have cut the diarrhea rate by over 2/3. Or, another possibility would be that Linaclotide is so dangerously potent that just participating in their trial - even if you are taking the placebo - will give you diarrhea. A thirdr possibility, of course, would be that diarrhea in the pleconatide trial was underreported by a factor of 3X or so.
Yes, I'm familiar with the paradoxical effect. A good example would be that the further SGYP drops, the more impassioned its supporters become.
Analyzing the trials, the most amazing thing about pleconatide is that the less you use, the more effective it becomes. While the 6mg dose produced 19.5% durable responders, the 3 mg dose produced 21% durable responders! Using no pleconatide at all - which is to say the placebo - produces a 10% durable response rate in both groups.(In their second trial, the placebo produced a 12.8% response rate.) So the key would obviously be to use an infinitesimal amount of pleconatide as a kind of homeopathic remedy. Abraham Lincoln said that Stephen A Douglas's arguments were "as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had been starved to death". The optimal dose of pleconadide might be created by gently swirling a Synergy stock certificate through a liter of warm pure grain alcohol and inhaling the fumes.
Since you first started posting here Aug. 3, this, obviously your primary investment (perhaps your only investment), has lost 24% of its value. This makes your chosen id a tad ironic, too. I have done very well going long on bio stocks, and would never be so rash as to have a short position in one - they're much too volatile. My id was created a long time ago - 25 years or more - when I used to short stocks actively. It's pretty foolish, in my opinion, to short stocks in a rising market, which we have had for the past several years. The only thing I short now is the S&P, which is a good way to provide some insurance for your portfolio. For example, if you'd bought a few thousand shares of the SDS back on Aug. 3, you'd have been able to offset a lot of your SGYP losses.