Sat, Aug 23, 2014, 9:47 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MACK) Message Board

cropsey14h 29 posts  |  Last Activity: 16 hours ago Member since: Feb 1, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • cropsey14h cropsey14h 16 hours ago Flag

    If I'm negotiating for X-US rights, i'm not making FDA approval my major milestone, since approval in my geography under license is all that's really relevant. I might wait for MACK to get FDA approval to receive first money's for exclusivity, but the big upfront cash will be upon local approval. The timing will be dicey for MACK to get significant money for 398 before they are cash drained. A bridge loan from the partner, collateralized by the license, might be a way to play it

    Sentiment: Hold

  • cropsey14h cropsey14h 17 hours ago Flag

    I hope your right Canphan, If I were on the other side of the 398 negotiation, I wouldn't offer much until I knew there was precedent that a regulatory body (FDA) approved the drug. This would give me heightened confidence that I could achieve the same in the EU and Asia. So if 'm Mulroy, I want to string out the negotiation as long as possible to gain a sense of what the FDA is likely to do and negotiate based on that. The challenge is how you do that against the burn rate. One obvious strategy is to freeze hiring and spending commitments in general until the dust settles

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Partnership announced next week

    by uvainvestor82 Aug 14, 2014 9:55 AM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Aug 18, 2014 12:05 PM Flag

    You don't know what you are talking about

    Sentiment: Hold

  • cropsey14h by cropsey14h Aug 11, 2014 10:55 AM Flag

    I think Mulroy tipped his hand a bit on the call today when he mentioned the incidence of pancreatic cancer in Asia. I would not be surprised if they are in substantive talks with Takeda, which to my mind id a logical partner for X US rights

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Next couple of weeks will bring us below $5

    by bradhughs2013 Jul 28, 2014 1:51 AM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Jul 28, 2014 6:32 PM Flag

    Is this fact based or a guess?

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Directors of this company are morons

    by uvainvestor82 Jul 15, 2014 10:49 AM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Jul 15, 2014 4:02 PM Flag

    For one reason and it's a good one; the science has tremendous promise. We have both posted before about how lame the management and directors are, but in the end the value has to be recognized. It will be bumpy and painfully long (already is!), but I still think it's worth it. Not a stock for a trader, but an investor with tremendous patience has an excellent risk/ return scenario with MACK

    Sentiment: Hold

  • cropsey14h cropsey14h Jun 29, 2014 7:58 PM Flag

    You are a legend in your own mind. Certainly there must be something better you can do with your time than self praise??

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    MM-398 is HUGE opportunity

    by mymandon Jun 29, 2014 10:28 AM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Jun 29, 2014 7:56 PM Flag

    Very helpful, thanks!

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Bench to Bed

    by cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 12:01 PM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 9:11 PM Flag

    I agree, but these guys seem to have an ego that trumps shareholder value. I hope fiscal realities sober them soon...

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Bench to Bed

    by cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 12:01 PM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 6:25 PM Flag

    No argument, but the point is how will they get the cash to do that? It's an unrealistic goal given current options and their balance sheet

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Bench to Bed

    by cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 12:01 PM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 4:54 PM Flag

    The typical adoption rates in Europe and Japan are far slower than the US. No doubt that most of the money will come as milestones, in a combination of royalty rate and sales thresholds. The money won't come in fast enough for them to fund the domestic 398 launch and fully develop the pipeline in an optimal fashion. So I believe they will have to make a choice. To me the obvious choice is to invest in what is the novelty at MACK, which is the genius of the science and leave the blocking and tackling of commercialization to an experienced partner , which is the commodity. Their board is fairly weak to not be forcing this issue

    Sentiment: Hold

  • cropsey14h by cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 12:01 PM Flag

    For some reason Mulroy said today that they need an inordinate amount of time to get the FDA filing together (hoping to do this " by years end"). This is way Ionger than industry norms and tells me they have under-resourced this function, which is a shame. This is the one area they should be all over and stop wasting time and money about launching it themselves in the US, which I think is way outside of the core competence of MACK
    They need to be laser focussed on dossier development and coordinating that with a FDA and EMEA filing. I don't support Mulroy's stated vision for MACK of "from bench to bed", this will not maximize shareholder value. . The percentage they will have to give up to a partner with a bespoke oncology infrastructure, will be more than compensated for by a faster and deeper adoption curve.They should get a globalization partner and give up this idea of of becoming a fully integrated oncology company. Their competence is science ( and I pray manufacturing), not sales and marketing!

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Once again

    by cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 11:03 AM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 11:28 AM Flag

    It's frustrating that they have this habit of ducking hard issues, which depresses the value. If they don't need a secondary he should state it clearly, if they do, Mulroy needs to resign as he clearly would be seen as "asleep at the wheel" and a dishonest executive .It's pretty binary to me..

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Once again

    by cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 11:03 AM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 11:14 AM Flag

    Nothing at all mentioned. They simply filtered out submitted questions they didn't want to address in order to keep a tight agenda during the time slot

    Sentiment: Hold

  • cropsey14h by cropsey14h Jun 26, 2014 11:03 AM Flag

    Another missed opportunity by MACK management to put communications in a positive (and proper) light. By limiting the discussion to 398 (not including broader questions, like mine), they beg the question as to how the proceeds of an X US deal for 398 could provide sufficient funds to both launch that product in the US and fund 121 pivotal trials. They continue to be vague and elusive, which is really unhelpful..

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Yesterday's 8k Filing

    by cropsey14h Jun 20, 2014 1:31 PM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Jun 20, 2014 1:45 PM Flag

    Makes sense but why would MACK forgo any money? They certainly need it..

    Sentiment: Hold

  • cropsey14h by cropsey14h Jun 20, 2014 1:31 PM Flag

    Interesting, this was in the filing
    "Merrimack waived Sanofi’s obligation to reimburse Merrimack for certain MM-121 development costs incurred after December 17, 2014."
    Wonder why they did that if this was a unilateral move from SNY? Perhaps there is some time urgency to bring closure and a clean exit??

    Sentiment: Hold

  • As I mentioned in an earlier post it comes as no surprise that Sanofi is not going forward with 121. If they intended to, they would not have let so much valuable time lag before progressing to the pivotal trial. The big question in my mind is how will MACK fund future 121 development. Mulroy stated that they would accomplish this via BD deals and not more equity financing. After 8+ years as an investor and observer of MACK, I stand unconvinced that he can pull it off; he's said stuff like this before and has a history of spinning BS. Raising money through dilution is the probable way forward, as they would be crazy to sit and wait for the cash flows of 398 to fund 121 pivotals. It's not my preference, but no matter how it's done, I'm willing to live through that as I am a believer in 121 and the broader platform. Should my scenario play out, I'm going to do what I can to push for a board and management change, as I believe in the science, but not the management. I hope others on this board will support that

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    my take on this insider buyimg

    by bigt198ou Jun 18, 2014 4:12 AM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Jun 18, 2014 6:17 PM Flag

    I agree with that sentiment. I blame Crocker and the board. It's been clear that Mulroy is in over his head for sometime. The company doesn't have a seasoned, proven business development leader from the industry. Stewart is a consultant with Zero industry experience, he's not seen to be a real player in bio-pharma M&A

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    what if saofi makes offer for mack

    by bigt198ou Jun 11, 2014 7:45 PM
    cropsey14h cropsey14h Jun 13, 2014 1:37 PM Flag

    In my mind the likelihood of Sanofi going forward with MACK reduces everyday that they take no action. The data from the 121 trial has been known to them for some time ( before Asco). In this indusrty, you never give up first mover advantage in the clinic if it is strategically relevant to your company and if you believe in the product. The fact that they have waited so long (hence MACK) to go to a pivotal trial, tells me that Sanofi wants out, and MACK is trying to make other arrangement to move forward.

    Sentiment: Hold

MACK
6.59+0.22(+3.45%)Aug 22 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.