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

Pharmacyclics Inc. Message Board

symptoms88 132 posts  |  Last Activity: 15 hours ago Member since: May 24, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • symptoms88 symptoms88 15 hours ago Flag

    Thumbs up on that Birdy

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 15 hours ago Flag

    Be careful Ryan and Eve you are not allowed to be an objective long expressing healthy opinions. Rather if you are long you must blindly cheerlead every move management makes, or you will be called a short, a trader. or a crybaby. -even if you did not intend to belabor the point but just responded to relentless posts by robotic cheerleaders speaking directly to you, you are the crybabies. (sarcasm off).

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 18 hours ago Flag

    Zinc-yes I have stated the case for why I believe a raise could have been done at a higher price. I don't restate it in every post. I have also acknowledged it is impossible to prove but I strongly believe it. Your convoluted nitpicky habit of making long explanations as to why statements of people are "fatally flawed" is annoying, stupid, and usually poorly reasoned. I wish you would stop. You would make a horrible lawyer. Anyway I'm now done on the topic of the raise and just will restate my original comment which is that the cheerleading of something so obviously done poorly makes me want to puke.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 30, 2015 6:20 PM Flag

    Cosmo-There is no "additional capital". My comment assumes the same capital is raised. My comment did not say or imply anything would or would not be "if not for the secondary". Again, my premise is that you raise the same $175M today while issuing less shares. I would bet my left nut that another management team could have raised at $8.50. It is the most mis-priced raise I have ever seen. It's only my strong opinion and I realize a not so humble one. I agree that absent a raise at a given time it is impossible to know for certain whether the outcome would have been better or worse in the long run. But it cannot possibly be better to do a raise today at a lower price (and hence diluting more by issuing more shares) then to do a raise today at a higher price and hence have to issue less shares to raise the same amount of money.

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 30, 2015 5:44 PM Flag

    Your wrong I can absolutely state the PPS will be lower for eternity bc the premise of my argument is that competent management could have raised the same amount of money, at the same time, at a higher price (a fair price). Thus there would be less shares outstanding and the same amount of money raised. Whatever drives PPS in the future, revenue or whatever else, is irrelevant. None of that would be any different. THE ONLY THING THAT WILL BE DIFFERENT IS THAT SINCE THERE ARE MORE SHARES OUTSTANDING, YOUR SHARES WILL BE WORTH LESS MONEY. Clearly you do not understand that, and clearly there are many others on this board who do not understand that.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 30, 2015 5:06 PM Flag

    LOL. ok now i need to retract my comment that enrgy took his meds today. Still in his lunacy he often makes cogent comments.

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 30, 2015 4:43 PM Flag

    The value of a company is it's market cap, not the price per share. XM when you realize that you will figure out that whatever the value of the company is today (ie;its market cap), the PPS would be higher had the offering been more fairly priced. So go ahead and rejoice at a $9 PPS or the $50PPS we all wish for. The PPS of this company will FOR ETERNITY be lower than it otherwise would be had the offering not been so under priced. It's like what enrgy flowers stated (apparently he took his meds today), any idiot can sell $1 for 80 cents.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 28, 2015 11:05 AM Flag

    LOL. Ok pal. I retract the use of the word "relented."

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 28, 2015 10:44 AM Flag

    Wily-well I have to say your rationale is convoluted and optimistic, but it seems we are less in disagreement than I might have thought, given that you seem to have relented on the issue that pricing of the secondary may have been more discounted than necessary. I too have a lot of eggs in this basket (share count 6 figures as well). I still believe this is my best investment, and will be my most profitable. I try not to let that affect my objectivity, so I can be critical at times. Clearly we are on the same team. Go NVAX!

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 28, 2015 10:02 AM Flag

    MTW I assume u r not responding to me since I have nothing against capital raises nor did I state that offerings should not have happened, nor did I express "the idea that we'd be much higher if it wasn't for the secondaries."

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 28, 2015 9:46 AM Flag

    Wily-I hear you but I think you miss the point. Even if I endorse the ultra-conservatism (I don't) that you articulate quite well to defend the timing of the raise, I still maintain that it should be obvious that the secondary was ridiculously underpriced. I have seen many a secondary and this is by far the worst deal I have ever seen. I negotiate prices and settlements for a living. This is not by a longshot the best price that astute negotiators could have agreed upon at this time for NVAX. I realize this is impossible to prove or disprove. It is just something I believe I know based on my background and experience, and my familiarity with the strength of NVAX, its market price, its upcoming catalysts, market sentiment for the company, and comparisons to countless other raises I have experienced with biotech stocks that I have owned. There is a time to give in or blink first and our guys are clueless in that area and what's worse the pattern of poor raises makes negotiating each successive raise at a fair price more difficult. Negotiating is a fine and complex art which involves many facets, and our guys suck at it, at least as far as the pricing of secondaries are concerned. I think to say that the street in general agrees with that is an understatement. Our guys are laughing stocks right now. So we will have to agree to strongly disagree, and of course I continue to respect you and wish you the best in this and your other investments. (but especially in this investment (-;

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 28, 2015 7:10 AM Flag

    Brady-I don't think we disagree. But "over 1%" for me and many others is quite a significant amount today in dollars. Let's say it's 2 1/2% due to poor negotiation of the last 2 raises alone. Lets hypothetically say that today represents over 20k for me and many other individual investors. Then multiply that amount by the ultimate value of the company. If it triples to PPS $24 (which I believe it will) then the loss from poor negotiation of the last 2 raises alone is 60k for that individual investor. I consider that a very hard kick in the nuts.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 28, 2015 6:31 AM Flag

    Wily I respect you and usually agree with you but I believe you are totally wrong. I am not a trader but a long term investor just like you. The truth is you and I will never ever under any circumstances recover from (now two) terribly priced offerings. It is not the raise that is the problem it is the price of it. 250 million dollars could have been competently raised while issuing less shares, I feel 100% sure of that. That means we both own a smaller percentage of the company than we otherwise could own, while still raising the same amount of money. It also means that the higher the share price goes, the GREATER our ultimate losses are, because we own the same decreased percentage of a greater more highly valued asset. You now have 2 consecutive examples of terribly timed and terribly priced raises. With CERTAINTY we would be better off today had NVAX not raised at $4 (while the PPS was $4.77 btw). The company made clinical advances after that time that we all know would have raised the value of the company long before a secondary was actually needed. (hence permitting a raise at a later time at a higher price, not to mention that it is hard to believe they could not negotiate a raise higher than $4 at the time). Raises at below MPs do not ever "cause" appreciation in the value of a company. It is the clinical progress that the money enables that can cause the appreciation. When NVAX goes to $20 after this raise your point will be far from proven. Quite the opposite. Moreover, the clinical advances that take place this year, all of which will happen before a raise was needed, will similarly disprove your point. Finally, even if something unexpected is announced that discloses MY (and YOUR) company had the need to raise the money quickly, the price of the offering is still IMO so ridiculously laughable that, yes, as jjjjingle said, there are those that must be snickering at how our boys were taken advantage of. I am not picking a fight here.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 27, 2015 9:04 PM Flag

    While I consider NVAX my most promising and most exciting (and btw largest) investment, I agree with the gist of jjjingle's post 100%. The offering was embarrassingly and amateurishly mispriced. The cheerleading and excuses by some posters that are otherwise often insightful and thoughtful makes me want to puke. Anyone that can't see that we got totally phlocked here is blind as a bat.

  • Reply to

    Not the same Novavax

    by ettagilletta Mar 27, 2015 2:23 PM
    symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 27, 2015 2:42 PM Flag

    agreed XM-it acted very much the same way after the last dilution

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 27, 2015 6:52 AM Flag

    Yes this is a good point and also was a point that could have been made when NVAX raised money at $4/share while the stock was trading in the $4.75 range. Of course all of the results since then have been stellar so (let me say this nicely) the "extremely conservative" decision to raise at $4 was not a precursor to, or indicative of, any imminent lack of success in clinical development. Thus, I would say that the current extremely conservative decision to raise at below market probably is not an indication of any expectation of poor results and does not necessarily indicate a lack of confidence in upcoming results. My take from all this is that I just wish management's approach to capital raises was reflected in the confidence that I believe they truly do have in what they are doing. We are all very happy that the PPS has doubled since the $4 raise, and we will all be happy when the PPS doubles again (I believe it will and within a year). However that does not mean I have to be pleased that one day when I sell or NVAX is bought out I do and will own a smaller percentage of this company than I otherwise would, had management made more prudent decisions with respect to the timing and pricing of capital raises.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 26, 2015 4:52 PM Flag

    No. It's not normal. It does not seem right that a company that should be operating from a position of strength should have to do an offering so far below a current market price. Of course much of the market cap loss is attributable to the sector losses, so you cannot attribute the full loss to management.
    Many peeps do not seem to understand the relationship between market cap and dilution. Some think all dilution is bad, which is beyond ridiculous. Others think that dilution is necessary regardless of it's effect on market cap (this is almost equally ridiculous). The starting point that needs to be understood is that (absent consideration of underwriting fees etc) a secondary offering which dilutes shares should have ZERO effect on market cap. The dilution of your percentage ownership of the company is EXACTLY offset by the added cash value that the money raised adds to the value of the company. It is a ZERO SUM game, as long as the transaction takes place at market prices, which after all is the price currently considered to be the fair value of the company by the market. Sometimes a company needs to do a raise at any cost so the sale is below MP. Sometimes there is such institutional demand that a raise can be done above MP. Our guys seem very proficient in raising money at below ATM rates, without any explanation as to why it is necessary. I do not mean to bash I have liked just about every other thing that management has done over the last several years, and they are very good at a lot of things. Raising money does not seem to be one of them.

  • It is just waiting for that first decided move upward after this sector pullback. Possibly tomorrow.

  • Reply to

    JPM & C Did a Review Of NVAX &

    by leogcarrolastopper Mar 26, 2015 11:42 AM
    symptoms88 symptoms88 Mar 26, 2015 12:36 PM Flag

    Why stop there? I'm sure a $5 offering would have made JPM's clients even happier. This should make us all happy???? Please.

255.95-0.48(-0.19%)Mar 31 4:00 PMEDT