Wow! Shorts really react to buyout stories. Amazing, ronsmithson seems to be on a first name basis with All the big pharma ceo's and knows what they're thinking about sgyp. Clearly, he has inside information. Ron, throw me a bone, please,....
"Sure. We now have a capability in those two areas that we didn't have. And whenever we get into a new area, G.I. is the main area we are getting into where we're obviously looking already at opportunities in G.I. to add products to that franchise. And so I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a sea change but we are always opportunistic and if we have a capability and we can find the right opportunity to create value for our shareholders we'll look at it".
Wonder who has a blockbuster GI drug pipeline for sale? Shire looking for GI but IRWD doesn't want to sell for $30. What will big pharma do? So much demand, only one small company for sale with best in class GI drugs. Man, this shaping up well. Swing with the sharks or lay back and let it come to you. I'm laying back.
Thanks, thought you were hinting at a block trade by noteholders outside normal channels.
Bear with me on this. It has occurred to me that for a long, in until buyout, that noteholders converting and selling to shorts covering could be a really good thing. Why?
Short buying has the "effect" of reverse dilution, but it is not "real" reverse dilution. If anyone takes an existing share and buys a short share, there are just as many shares in the float.
If, on the other hand a short share is bought by a conversion share, the float is actually reduced at the time of mass conversion. A borrowed shared would be bought by a share that doesn't yet exist thereby reducing the total dilution at buyout by 18 million shares. It would work like a stock buyback in effect.
Pps would not rise, but dilution on our last raise would go down by a third.
Best part would be the price the shares were sold at would be virtually irrelevant to current shareholders. The effect of the reverse dilution would be felt at buyout rather than during cover, and would make the reverse dilution real rather than an "effect." Does this all make sense. I think it does, but when you get this deep it's easy to get lost. Biodrift, Beton, am I missing something or could this be good for old longs in until buyout. Momo guys would hate missing the pop, but who cares, it would line major shareholders pockets at buyout. Don't hear Momo guys apologizing to me every time they sell 20k shares on a short bringdown.
Well, Trader mentioned that he felt shorts were overextended and needed noteholders shares to cover out. I started to wonder if I were a noteholder what it would take to induce me to sell to them. Assume phase iii is favorable, buyout is lurking and shorts decide to cover by trying to purchase noteholders shares? Could they get them and if so, at what price. That is assuming they don't already have them which is what makes them look so fearless shorting here.
If you were a short and needed to buy a convertible share, first do you think you could get one, and if you could, do you think you could get 18 million of them, and what do you think such a share would cost. I've thought about it a little and at a guaranteed 7% with phase three data and buyout looming I simply wouldn't sell you a share for less than $8.50. But then again, I'm a die hard long and don't even swing that much.
I figure all you guys who swing a lot might have a better idea than me of what a convertible share might trade for if on the market.
Trader 88, a transcendent long. My mentor here. Shout out to you trader. Hope you and your family are well.
I agree, richinjun.
I think they're more interested in suppressing CIC than bringing it down right now, but are drawn to bad IBB days like moths to a flame. I think this last bringdown was a mistake for them. First, as you point out, what are they to do now they're here, and second, if they don't let this get high enough they're not going to get the selling they want. They have to know this. Glta.
Stock clearly doesn't want to be below $4 now. Shorts brought it down with the IBB. Why? Because they couldn't pass up the opportunity. Now they've got it where it really doesn't want to be, guess they'll have to decide if they want to keep it here before data or not. They should have just let it alone at $4.
Beton, you know I like the beginning and the end of the story, but the middle is broken. Consider the following quote, "and when the price actually dropped to $2.80 and news of a potential buyout of SGYP was leaked they started to sell these positions and hence caused the rise in price." Is this the way you remember things? News on buyout wasn't leaked until we were over $4 and short made a move to bring it down under $4. We rose $1.25 on buying that shorts sold into to keep us from running. And if you check short interest, it went up for multiple reporting periods during the runup. He's right about what they're doing, but wrong about how and why they're doing it. No one has adequately explained why and the Author's missing how. Irrespective, it should play out basically as he predicts. Buyout is the wildcard. Got to hold here until buyout to get paid. Shorts did cover 1.6 mm shares, I believe, recently though (those after hours shares). Probably overdue shares that they were naked shorting with. Really hope that things align in a way that allows the company to destroy them. They can mess with current PPS, but not with me. In until buyout whenever that happens.
Another attempt to make sense of the irrational short position. Last one was the CLASP theory article that still intrigues. The first part of the article reads well. This is all shorts. The end reads well, this will go for $8 - $12, a fair guess. The middle part breaks down though. Short interest and the runup don't compute as indicated. But, most importantly, the article does what I do some time, and that is to totally disregards the role of any buying. When we trade in the 400k volume, it often is all shorts HFTing on both sides of the trade in total control. The numbers don't make sense that the runup was all short covering. Also, I know suppressive short selling when I see it. We had a lot of that. But we had some real buying in the runup. I always look to "money flow" when we've got heavy HFTing going on to help make sense of it. Negative money flow means shorts lost money to bring it down absent selling. No doubt these guys make money swinging the channels on low volume, but low volume is not what we've had recently. Further, I put their basis at around $4.50.
I do believe they have an exit plan too, but I think they're on their third one. These guys are not so much in danger of a squeeze as "being caught by buyout". Go back and look at OIC on the charts. They are simply going to do the exact same thing to CIC. Supress the run up, bring it down and cover into the selling, and then HFT as much as they can out over the summer at low levels. Only thing that stops this is buyout rumors or news. Given enough time they will get out. But they've got a lot of shares to get out before buyout. If longs don't sell, they're toast. If buyout rumors surface their toast. If buyout happens their toast. Momo guys give them hundreds of thousands of shares regularly.
Overall, I think they're more trapped than him, but think they can avoid getting squeezed absent buyout news. Just the news will kill them. Don't sell, buy low, be a good long!
Well I for one would like to say that I knew Hugh would sell the whole time. You've got to wake up early to fool me.
Prxl, can you think of any reason sgyp wouldn't announce that the trial had ended? They've always announced trials ending before. Shouldn't we assume the trial has yet to end? Honestly, I have no idea and am just waiting for stuff to happen at this point.
I've been thinking about it for a while. I would be willing to wait for phase Ii UC. It could be huge for us, but maybe that's what the 1b UC trial is all about, that is, dangling the "possibility" of a good UC drug (good phase i1b results) without doing all the trials and risking failure. But a phase Ii UC WOULDNT cost that much. When is it, June for phase 1b results?
If I remember correctly, this was about the time Inhibitex took off, after first phase III. Buyout is the only thing that scares shorts. They would have newbies here believe there is no difference between releasing phase II and phase III results, no difference between last year and this. There's a big difference! We're almost done! This is when companies like ours sell. We can start counting in months not years anymore. So can shorts.
Cerrone and the boys that put this together are ordinary people. They have feelings just like you and me. Don't wonder how they feel about what these shorts have done to the company, frustrating cash raises and suppressing catalysts and PPS. It's got to be personal. They hate these guys. They're ordinary people that have had a hard stick stuck up their bums for a long time.
Whatever the company does, however they do it, you have GOT to figure they will do it in such a way as to inflict MAXIMUM damage to shorts. I suspect the bricks will fall on shorts heads when everyone least expects it, when they look to be in total control. Don't think the real war starts until after good phase III data. Be careful on the post data swing. This would be the ideal time for the company to hurt them badly. Would be the perfect time to punish shorts and weak hands alike. Swimming with sharks like these is risky business. Best to stay out of the water until the blood is gone.