Be careful what you wish for. GSK and others can star accumulating shares of SRPT at any time. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they already have started.
I don't use RSI solely as a technical indicator of overbought/oversold, but rather in context with the MACD. When they are both high that is an overbought indicator (MACD is near zero right now). When both oscillators are low, then it indicates oversold, but neither is the case right now.
This isn't a huge help because it is still in "No man's land" - neither overbought nor oversold. However, these technical indicators are really only meaningful when all else is equal. All else is not equal right now as the FDA is about to accept (or potentially reject) the NDA for Eteplirsen. This binary event will overwhelm any technical indicator which are really only useful during status quo times.
Not only is it going to be the only drug approved, it is the only drug that WORKS. Plus, it is safe.
The only competing drug doesn't work and has major safety issues.
Though no doubt it will pass in the future, they just didn't get enough votes yet.
Once NDA is filed then Management is likely to have the clout to get it pushed through.
That is my point. It is evil. Maybe a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless. It's like the people that say sexual harassment in the workplace will always exist as long as there are women in the workplace. That may be true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose it at every turn.
Any short with any sense would use this lull to cover. Given the high likelihood of filing with the FDA and subsequent good news, and no idea when the funds will start buying in anticipation of approval, this is the lowest they are likely to see in the foreseeable future.
Counter point: show me any biotech that did a secondary that the stock price went up as a result of it (not in spite of it).
ISIS comes to mind immediately. Nice article in TheFool that headlined that the profit sure beats a secondary (article 2/28/2015, so current). They got progress payments from partnerships, investments in RGLS paid off, etc.
Another article in TheFool 3/23/15 highlights ANLY, SNY, BIIB, CELG, and others, while explaining the damage a secondary offering does. Yes, it is one of the many options open to a development stage biopharamaceutical company, but should not be the de facto starting point, which appears to be the situation based on the discussion here. He level of acceptance is alarming to say the least.
"Deal with it"?
My what an "in your face" inflammatory statement.
Just know that not everyone is a submissive shareholder, allowing he company to do to them anything/everything without repercussions. The CEO was fired for a reason. The CFO should not be quite so quick to follow suit.
Watching all the bashing makes me slow to voice my stance, but I don't want to see a secondary offering either. They can raise money a lot of ways before going to a secondary.
Though, reading through all the posts, apparently there are a lot of kids on this board who always go back to Mom & Dad for money because it is the easiest way (plus nobody else will give them any).
OK. Let the bashing begin.
Rare-disease drugs have proven a hot topic of late, as investors appear eager to pump billions into companies that develop them. That’s because from a business standpoint, there can be major financial incentives for biotech firms to focus on drugs targeting small and potentially lucrative pockets of the population. One such case played out earlier this month when Synageva Biopharma, a Lexington biotech that specializes in rare disorders, agreed to be acquired for $8.4 billion. Its potential acquirer, Alexion Pharmaceuticals of Cheshire, Connecticut, sells the world’s most expensive rare drug, Soliris, at roughly $500,000 per year.
Others are pursuing similar strategies. Massachusetts’ second-largest drug firm, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, is targeting a U.S. population of about 15,000 patients with a cystic fibrosis drug, Orkambi. That drug, if approved, is expected to generate annual revenue of $5 billion within just a few years after its launch.
Sarepta has not yet set a price for the drug, but RBC Capital Markets analyst Simos Simeonidis cites an estimate of $500,000 per year per patient. There are about 4,500 patients in the U.S. and Europe.
Ed Kaye’s background is in neurochemical research and pediatric neurology, but ask about his goals for Sarepta Therapeutics, and you’ll get about as non-technical an answer as it gets. “If we could prevent boys from dying from Duchenne muscular dystrophy, that would be a really good thing,” said Kaye, the company’s interim CEO.
It’s a goal toward which the company made a huge step last week, when it announced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration blessed the company’s application for approval of its drug, eteplirsen. That news put Sarepta back in the race to have the first-ever treatment in the U.S. to slow the progression of a disease both heartbreaking and deadly. Popularized by Jerry Lewis telethons, the disease — which affects one in 3,600 boys — deteriorates the muscles, gradually taking away their ability to walk, eat and breathe.
Since Eteplirsen works, it will dramatically extend the lives of boys with DMD, and help the company recover all the R&D costs of development (and extended costs of FDA delays, which patients/insurance end up paying for) in the form of revenues. The longer patients are alive, the longer they can use the medicine, and the more revenues for the company.
Drisapersen on the other hand, doesn't work at all, plus adds liver toxicity, eliminating customers and revenue streams. Nobody makes money from patients who die. Sad, but true. This is why GSK pulled out and abandoned Drisapersen. It simply doesn't work and can't compete with Eteplirsen, which is both safe and effective.
One of these mornings, very soon, we are going to wake up to a triple whammy of great news:
1) Accelerated Approval granted
2) Breakthrough Therapy designated
3) Priority Review granted
And a massive gap UP in share price, followed by a short squeeze.
Think about where we would be without the short sellers artificially holding down the share price AND how much more it will shoot up when those shorts inevitably cover.
I will build on your post further because if BMRN was about to credit Dris with 1/4 of its $4B market cap, for a drug that doesn't work, then how much more than that $1B is it worth to SRPT for a drug that actually WORKS?
Yahoo routinely filters out posts by intelligent, well informed people who share information. They don't want this board to get too far away from the spam from the shorts and SA loons.
Had not intended to be biased, just curious if people think it warrants designation for AA.
One could easily argue that it warrants approval, just not accelerated; or some kooks might argue that it shouldn't be approved at all (Romuluss).
It is about expected value. You continue to be woefully ignorant of it as you keep ignoring it. You keep pointing to current revenue and ignoring all potential. Perhaps that's how you justified your short at $12/share. At this point it is better to just admit you were wrong, cover your short position, and move on.
There are many good short selling opportunities out there, such as Drisapersen. You could make back all your losses and a ton more shorting that pig.