Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: That was exactly the point of what I wrote. I think we have been on the same page in our assessment of ACAD. I've been in this stock since it was a teenager and have weathered many starts and stops. I think Davis has the experience that was sorely lacking at ACAD for years and it is simply a matter of time for it all to fall into place.The "material agreement isn't really news, but it sure is a sign that they are actually moving forward.
While this is certainly another step toward the NDA filing, I don't see it as significant news. Obviously, ACAD had to acquire substances from somewhere and BASF is certainly a known supplier. ACAD didn't win a prize, but simply choose BASF to supply them. However, it is encouraging that ACAD is showing movement toward putting the pieces in place for the filing. I sure hope they don't have too many other "pieces" to put in place.
I am not sure what your problem is, nor the problem of someone who has to correct a minor error of a form 4k to a form 4, but perhaps you are all very nervous. There is no possibility that I said no one has any business investing in a company with no product. That is exactly what investing in a start-up is.
Perhaps Fidelity keeps 20% in cash, but cash doesn't make money. When I say Fidelity has trillions invested, that includes their vast, company owned mutual funds. The fund managers make the decision as to where those investment dollars go. And yes, I was vice president of a major university (although that doesn't mean squat when it comes to investment) and am easily found on Google. If you want to contact me, I will give you my name and you can go check me out. miniatus at comcast dot net. You will also find an article I wrote in Forbes on Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB).
And, if I am off by a trillion dollars when I write that they have 5.2 trillion invested, would that really make a difference to you? Is 4.2 trillion such a small amount of money to you that you would simply dismiss Fidelity as some minor player in the market?
You guys seem more interested in typos, questioning choice of words, and wringing your hands over the reading of tea leaves that aren't even in front of you.
You wrote: "Actually you are correct, they have billions of dollars "under their mattress", it's called a cash position. They also invest in mutual funds, bonds, real estate, etc... so one more time, your 5.2 trillion in stock, is off by well more than $1,000,000,000,000. And yes it does take alot of research to see how much they have in speculative biotech, and that's what I do before I invest. You also said that nobody has any business investing in biotechs without an approved product, you followed that by you sold your position at $32, so I'm assuming that you had inside information before you invested???? Vice president of a university huh????"
Where do you think Fidelity puts it 5.2 trillion? Under the mattress? 15% of their holdings is in biotechnology. It is possible to see what they are holding in individual stocks, but it requires a good deal of research. Where are you a carpenter? I desperately need a talented one. And why would you have to "admit" you are a carpenter? What is wrong with being a carpenter? Carpenters solve complex problems and a good one thinks things through better than many CEO's and money managers.
If I wrote "How would a buyout effect presentations to either the investment or medical communities, " the use of effect is correct. I am using effect as a verb and I think Webster and the Oxford dictionary approve of my use:
verb ef·fect \i-ˈfekt, e-, ē-, ə-\
: to cause (something) : to make (something) happen
: to cause (something) to produce the desired result"
So my sentence would be: "How would a buyout [make something happen (i.e. cause a change) to ACAD's intention to present information to the investment or medical community.
I think individuals who are questioning my use of "effect" are reading it as a noun - but it is clearly the verb in the sentence.
I apologize for a typo that I just noticed. Perhaps I should slow down my typing or employ an editor to proof before I post. I wrote: " I been married and divorced twice." Of course, I meant I'VE been married...."
I even offended myself by this egregious error and hope that you will accept my apology! Even the fact that English is my third language, having been raised in French and German for the first 6 years of my life, is no excuse for such an offense.
Your response is the perfect example of the stupidity that seems to grow as a fungus on this board. My use of the word "effect" is, indeed, correct. But your lack of grammatical knowledge is not the issue. The issue is that someone writes a perfectly neutral and factual post on this board and the response is about the use of a word. I did not write an opinion piece on ACAD because I have no opinion. I simply shared facts that I am looking at before committing money to a larger position. The facts I have stated, such as the Fidelity numbers, are not an interpretation or a guess but a cut and paste from their own web page. The fact that the information about Davis buying 150,000 shares was false comes directly from a 4K, etc. The relationship of the Baker brothers to ACAD meant simply that a Baker Brothers partner is a member of a very small board of directors and therefore the Baker Bothers clearly have an EFFECT on ACAD. I have never suggested that anyone buy or sell this stock or short it. I neither said that Fidelity or the Bakers were among the 31 institutions to sell their positions last quarter. Perhaps some of you should just read a post and for what it is rather than read it for an opportunity to pick the poster apart (sometimes incorrectly) for an error in language use or a typo.
I don't need your abuse: I been married and divorced twice. If there is a typo or any other error in this post, I apologize to evngsun, whose sensitivity to correct grammar clearly far exceeds his concern for an investment. He reminds me of some of my Princeton classmates who thought they were enrolled at Oxford!
Well, first let me apologize for my belief that BABA would drop more quickly than it did! If you think it won't go below 70, then by all means invest in it. However, I don't think posting an opinion is exactly misrepresenting a fact. Second, FMR isn't an active investor? Surely you jest. Do you think the fund managers simply buy stock every ten years and head off to the Bahamas until they return to review the funds' investments?
I'm not here to argue, especially with someone whose response isn't a discussion but some absurd rationale why anything I post is worthless because BABA hasn't yet gone under 70. Perhaps it just has more investors like you than I thought. I am not a seer, but only an investor.
I find it odd that the question is asked by others in this thread what relationship the Baker brothers have with Acadia. Perhaps you are all just pulling my leg!
Fidelity by the Numbers: Overview as of March 31, 2015
As a privately held company, Fidelity has the freedom to focus on the long-term success of our customers. We believe our revenue model creates a healthy alignment with the interests of our customers. We do well when they do well.
24 million individual investors
20.0 million brokerage accounts
506,200 commissionable trades per day
$5.2 trillion total customer assets
In regard to Fidelity, no one on the board seems to understand that its investment in ACAD is de minimus. It owns, across several of its investment components, about a 5 trillion in stock. Posters on this board also don't seem to understand the relationship the Baker brothers have with ACAD, nor do they even seem to understand the recent "acquisition" of Davis's shares. Even the number of shares he supposedly "bought" was posted incorrectly. the last form 4F I recall seeing for Davis was in March 2015. On that date, he received two lots of options (a total of 220,000 shares at a price of 0), exercisable in March 2016 at $34.45. I don't see the acceptance of free options as a vote of confidence in a company. Indeed, it bothers me that only one key executive seems to own stock in a company whose stock everyone on a Yahoo board seems to think is going to surge.
If you want to get in touch with me: miniatus at comcast dot net
You ask "who are you?" A fair question always deserves an answer.
I am an investor who trades from time to time. My trades usually result in selling a surge in a biotech that has occurred for no clear reason and then buying back at a lower price. Sometimes I hold on to a core position when a stock drops and sometimes I don't. Buying and selling stock is easy: researching a company, especially in biotechnology to reach a decision to buy, is complicated. Selling is a much easier decision. Unless an investor has access to biochemists, CEO's in the field, and physicians, he or she has no business investing in any of these companies without an FDA approved drug and revenues from that drug. I don't frequently read, and less frequently post on, message boards because I find that what is posted is rarely based on knowledge. Too often, posters post based on hope that a stock will go up (an emotional commitment to a company) or that it will drop (quite often a more logical position after an inexplicable run). Using ACAD as an example: I bought ACAD in the 16's and sold it on that surge to 46 when posters were convinced that it cancelled conference participations because the company was being sold. Why would it do that? Don't you think if it had a buyout deal the buyer would want to maintain as much exposure for the company as it could? How would a buyout effect presentations to either the investment or medical communities? Since selling, I have traded the stock several times, although with considerably fewer shares than I was holding from 16 to 46.
I've been investing since the mid 70's, became a more active investor in the early 80's, when I sold my company and retired (at age 39), a semi-active investor when I returned to work as vice president of a major university) and then a full time investor in 1998.
Ran out of space. will continue in next message.
Beware of posters whose narcissism results in posting how many shares they own or claim a subscription to expensive professional services, such as Bloomberg. In the "Bloomberg bloated ego" poster's post, he or she claims that Fidelity reduced it's holdings from 20% to 15% on June 30, 2015. IT DID NOT.
On March 31, 2015 FMR owned 15,025,757 shares or 14.98%
On June 30, 2015, FMR owned 15,044,163 shares or 15%
In addition, another 8,000,000 shares are owned by 3 of Fidelity's funds.
Fidelity actually increased its holdings in ACAD by 18,856 shares. Perhaps Ned Johnson decided not to go out to lunch that day and told his secretary to put his lunch money in ACAD.
A reasonable answer, but you have clearly neither spoken to a sophisticated oncologist nor to a radiologist who is responsible for providing information. I spoke to both at a place called Dana Farber, here in Cambridge, MA. detecting mutations in metastatic cancer requires precise study and a urine study is unlikely to replace current technology. The whole point of a CC is to disseminate news in the best possible light. Of course interest was high in the pilot program, but interest, like talk, is "cheap." As for a perfect storm today for biotech, I don't see any bio down 14%, with the exception of CLDX and, considering the reason for its decline, it is probably an extremely good opportunity to enter, considering the vast pipeline, trial results, and science.
When I am wrong, I admit it. TROV is everything you say it is. No one should be concerned that it if off 58% in the last 8 weeks. The obvious reason it is down is because of the mythical "paid bashers" of whom you and your pals speak. Sorry for taking another "20 seconds of your life that you won't get back."
This company has just about everything against it.
To name a few negatives:
1. It is years off from approval
2. Physicians are reluctant to change and invasive radiologists would take a big hit to their livelihood. The FDA isn't going to cause that. They are all physicians.
3. If you were a patient with a tumor, would you want the tissue examined or would you want to depend on an urine test?
4. This was a $5 stock 6 months ago: what changed to make it a $10 stock? Answer, nothing significant.
5. The company doesn't have enough cash for the road ahead and will have to eventually do another secondary.
The replies are becoming less and less intelligent. Yes, I believe that America has no right to choose who has nuclear capability and who does not. I also do not think the issue is whether or not Iran has that capability. If the American people were not so vocal against war (and the republicans are as vocal against a ground war as the democrats) we would have and should have ended terrorism long before Obama took office.
Stopping Iran from nuclear capability is a side show. America has every reason to invade and conduct a ground war and should. Eventually, it will have no choice other than to do that. To support a standing army and virtually guarantee soldiers that they will never have to face combat has turned our armed services into a social service program. Perhaps those who make assumptions about someone else's opinion ought to hear and understand it before making absurd accusations. If frankfrazzano actually has an idea, why doesn't he state it, rather than sing the Ted Cruz song" "I can solve the problem but won't tell you how."
Nope. Born in U.S., Jewish and Vietnam vet, but don't believe that America has the right to decide what other countries are allowed to have and not have. This is no different than the nuclear nonsense during the cold war. Does it matter who dies a minute before or a minute after? Do you think Iran wants to be wiped out immediately after some other country is? Iran having a nuclear weapon is the least of our problems. Terrorists seem to do just fine without them. If Iran ever released a nuclear weapon, the entire middle east would be wiped out. In fact, one of our nuclear weapons in Israel would probably strike Iran before one of theirs struck the U.S. The problem with you Obama haters is that you never have an alternative to any issue and there is no alternative to the deal that is now being considered.
The real pity is that Americans seem to want presidents and secretaries of state to have graduated high school. Otherwise, you could have been elected or appointed. What a simpleton you are and what little understanding you seem to have about the need to calm down the middle east in the hope that, over time, more reasonable positions will prevail in Iran. Besides, who are the Americans to tell another country that they can't have nuclear weapons? Why doesn't Congress tell the Russians and Israelis that they have to dump theirs?